On Aug 25, 2008, at 8:35 AM, Gary Furnish wrote: > I've been trying to get an answer for this question for the last few > weeks: Is the plan to extend ginac (write algorithms in C) or to > extend sage (write new algorithms in Sage) using cython/python?
I don't think this was addressed in the email, but my understanding is that the plan is very much the latter. Perhaps (I hope) that much of this will not be re-implementation so much as porting SymPy algorithms/getting SymPy to run on top of GiNaC. > This is very much a design related question, and in the hurry to > get GiNaC > through review I feel that design issues and questions have been very > much ignored. To put the question somewhat differently, are > algorithms using the new symbolics system going to be use GiNaC/pynac > enough that switching to any other low level system will be very, very > difficult (because new code such as sums may depend directly on GiNaC > specific behavior)? If this is not intended, what will be done to try > to prevent Sage from becoming overly dependent on GiNaC in the long > term? > > --Bill --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
