On Sunday, July 24, 2016 at 2:38:44 PM UTC+1, vdelecroix wrote: > > On 24/07/16 05:13, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > I believe that the work on libGAP interface might better wait for GAP > > folks to come up with their own libGAP. They refused to merge "our" > > libGAP, and they say they have their own version in the works, which > > they need to create a Jupyter kernel for GAP. > > I don't understand what this point has to do with the OP (which is a > clear question about *coercion* and *interfaces in general*). libGAP was > just an *example*. > However, whatever libGAP will be it will remain a C library. How it is > integrated in Sage and how it interacts with the rest of Sage is a Sage > question... >
Upon reading of the trac ticket I got an impression that while an extension you propose is very desirable, it would need more work on the C side of libGAP, as it does not expose enough of GAP's C functions. Dima -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
