On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 3:47 PM, Martin Albrecht<m...@informatik.uni-bremen.de> wrote: > >> Who told you that? I don't agree with that at all. Just because >> something has a cython interface doesn't mean it has be a standard >> component of Sage. That would be a pretty sad limitation for Sage. > > I did. The patch up for review at > > http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/6416 > > requires Frobby to present. Iff it is going to get a positive review as is, > then Frobby needs to be standard. At least, that is my understanding.
That's certainly true. I see now that Bjarke said "I wrote a cython interface to Frobby at Sage Day 16, and I'm told this requires Frobby to be a standard component of Sage." You're right, that particular Cython interface does require Frobby to be a standard component of Sage. So I'll just make the remark that having a Cython interface does not require Frobby to be a standard component -- it's just the particular one that Frobby now has does require it to be standard. The alternative would be to put the Cython interface in a different Python package, say site-packages/frobby, have a separate setup.py for it, etc. Then put some Python code in the Sage library that would expose that Cython interface when it is available. -- William --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
