On Saturday, July 6, 2013 1:02:54 AM UTC-4, Snark wrote: > Do we really need nef.x, poly.x, etc. ; I mean if the executables names > don't reflect what they are good for, perhaps we (both in sage and in > debian) should stick to -<num>d.x variants?
In principle we don't need an unnumbered poly.x, though for backward compatibility it would be nice to have it. Ideally it would be a symlink to poly-6d.x -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
