On Apr 20, 2009, at 11:44 PM, Maurizio wrote: > Hi Michael, > > Actually, I thought that this discussion (especially people much more > expert than me) has clarified the point that implementing integrals is > not really just matter of a couple of months... but I would be glad to > see this happen!
Implementing something that can handle a huge number of integrals is a reasonable goal for a couple of months. Implementing something that can handle everything that we know how to handle in theory...well, that hasn't ever happened yet. > I know there are some license issues with SymPy (not really issues, > just differences probably) but I think there's no problem in taking > inspiration and some pieces of code from it, right? There is a problem with just lifting code--but we can and do ship SymPy as part of Sage. > I'm saying this, because I can see this new symbolic stuff exciting, > but without the right amount of interest on it, its development will > always be a little slow Given that we ship SymPy, so anything it can handle we should be able to handle. I imagine when you want to integrate something, it will try to do it natively first, and that failing ask SymPy and/or maxima before returning a failure. Over time we'll depend less and less on the other two. - 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
