People, I'm really glad about having brought this discussion to a reasonably interesting level.
>From now on, I can't give any other comment (I can't deal with code so specific issues), but I'd like to hear those coming from the mantainers of SAGE. As far as I'm concerned, I was trying to get the attention of Quantities' developers, and I think I accomplished this in a fairly satisfying way. I can try to give my comments now, but the situation now seems to be tightly related on whether there is any chance that anybody works on anything. So, words are becoming less important than actions in this phase, in my opinion. By the way, to me, it doesn't seem that dealing with numpy quantities should be a big deal (at least for the time being), otherwise how comes are we using already numpy for numerical stuff at the moment? I know this could be bad for my final aim (that is, bringing physical units to a higher degree of functionalities, related to polynomials and symbolic, and I've seen that other people have interest in this), because maybe getting this simple feature could calm down this discussion and let people forget this issue. To connect to the other discussion we are having in this days, I think this engineering related features should be enhanced and stressed (and possibly clearly documented), and I don't think this needs to create another distribution of SAGE, the current one is very good and I'd like to have a single version. I still encourage you guys to at least give your comments Regards and thanks everybody Maurizio On 23 Mar, 21:03, Robert Bradshaw <rober...@math.washington.edu> wrote: > On Mar 22, 2009, at 6:49 AM, Darren Dale wrote: > > > > > On Mar 20, 10:31 pm, Jason Grout <jason-s...@creativetrax.com> wrote: > >> Maurizio wrote: > >>> Not yet... I think I was previously asking whether some of you guys > >>> are interested in trying to contact them, if you do think it does > >>> makes sense. > > >>> I mean, if this community is interested in having this feature, the > >>> Quantities developers are going to find some good feedback, > >>> otherwise, > >>> we could just probably end up losing a good occasion, because things > >>> are not ready yet (although I hope that's not the case)! > > >> I think there are a good number of people now that would like to have > >> the feature, and as you well know, there are lots and *lots* of > >> future > >> users that would like to have the functionality. > > >> I'd say it's time to contact them and see if they can help. If there > >> needs to be changes made to Quantities, then making them now, > >> while it > >> is still solidifying, would be advantageous. > > > Hello, I am Darren Dale, the developer of Quantities. Thank you > > Maurizio for contacting me. > > Glad to hear from you. > > [...] > > > I guess the question I have for this list is, what would be required > > for quantities to work in sage? I would prefer to try to work out the > > numpy issues I alluded to before quantities gets too much exposure, in > > case changes in API are required (unlikely). > > Am I correct in understanding that the values in Quantities all need > to be NumPy values? If this is the case, it probably boils down to > NumPy's not handling of non-Python types. This really needs to get > resolved. > > - Robert --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
