mabshoff wrote: > > > On Dec 10, 7:48 am, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 7:36 AM, Jason Grout > > > <SNIP> > >>>> The ultimate goal should be to get code into Sage since there is >>>> nearly always common code to factor out and getting more users for >>>> some infrastructure bits in Sage has always improved that code. And if >>>> you apply the same demands to the contributed code as to Sage library >>>> code, i.e. 100% doctests and so on, you might as well get the code in >>>> the library itself. Obviously some people will likely disagree with me >>>> on the kitchen sink model :) >>> You had my intent right. > > Ok, I didn't want to flame you :) > >>> So you think having a "minimum_rank_bounds" >>> function on graphs and an associated file or two would be okay to be in >>> the Sage library? >> I don't see why not, as long as it is up to snuff code-quality wise. Just >> don't make it a function imported to the global namespace by default on >> startup of Sage. > > I 100% agree, the trade off of not having the code in Sage is minimal.
Thanks for the clarification. In Sage tradition, I've made a trac ticket now: http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/4754 Thanks, Jason --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
