<rant> I am reviewing #9798 and we have a disagreement over there as to whether it makes sense to add 4Kb of C code implementing an r.n.g. to the package in order to get rid of hardware dependence. I said there that a much better way is to use, say, GSL's r.n.g., and these 4Kb of C code there is a good example of code bloat... I must either be wrong, or not sounding convincing enough...
Perhaps in reality each Sage package must get is own rng, arbitrary precision arithmetic, garbage collection, embedded Lisp... </rant> Dima -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
