Hi sage-devel, As a huge part of Arpit Merchant's GSoC project on Gabidulin codes, we've been working on Xavier Caruso's old patch implementing skew polynomial rings, #13215.
While everyone involved has considered the code and math carefully, it is my opinion that the design could still be subject to (mild) changes in the near future, so I suggested that the code be merged but with the @experimental warning on. This arose in part because I very recently was made aware that there are multiple conflicting notions of evaluation of skew polynomials, and the current patch supports only one. I imagine that other, similar things could crop up. One reviewer is strongly opposed to adding @experimental to the module. He would accept adding it on __call__ due to the aforementioned example, but not to simply constructing the skew polynomial ring. It seems we fundamentally disagree on what valid use-cases are for @experimental. So we bring it to sage-devel for arbitration. Essentially, my point of view is that when a new structure is added to Sage, and one has mild doubts that certain details could change, then the @experimental decorator can/should be added. But the code can still be merged, even if the addition of @experimental reveals less than fool-hardy conviction in the design. The reviewer argues against this because the code is useless for building upon if one cannot trust the API. (Perhaps the reviewer would like to argue his stance more clearly than I can.) Best, Johan -- 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.
