On Sunday 14 Jun 2015 17:21:21 R. Andrew Ohana wrote: > I think the main reason why Sage has its own Cython bindings is mainly > historical -- they existed before polybori added their own python bindings. > It would probably be a better idea to use polybori's own bindings in Sage > -- it makes no sense trying to maintain two sets of python bindings.
That's not how I remember it (but my memory might not serve me right): As far as I know PolyBoRi always had Python bindings, but we wanted something in Cython so it integrates nicely with the rest of Sage. Also, we wanted tight integration (coercion, inheritance, etc.) some of which should now be easier due to changes to the Sage code base (e.g. mathematical hierarchy and inheritance were decoupled). I agree with the sentiment, though, and the plan: it would entail ripping the Cython bindings out and refactoring the Sage specific parts. Cheers, Martin -- .www: https://martinralbrecht.wordpress.com .pgp: 40BC 7F0D 724B 4AB1 CC98 4014 A040 043C 6532 AFB4 .xmpp: martinralbre...@jabber.ccc.de .twitter: https://twitter.com/martinralbrecht .keybase: https://keybase.io/martinralbrecht -- 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/d/optout.
