On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 9:48 AM, Georg S. Weber
wrote:
>
>>
>> This post is about:
>>
>> (1) Concern about distutils/setuptools/etc., is misplaced.
>> (2) Python3 and librarifying Sage.
>>
>> First, all this discussion about distutils/setuptools/david
>> cournapeau, etc., is actually mostly I
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 7:34 AM, leif wrote:
> On 1 Nov., 07:51, William Stein wrote:
>> This post is about:
>>
>> (1) Concern about distutils/setuptools/etc., is misplaced.
>> (2) Python3 and librarifying Sage.
>>
>> First, all this discussion about distutils/setuptools/david
>> cournapeau,
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 11:02 PM, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
>
> On Oct 28, 4:23 am, "Georg S. Weber"
> wrote:
>> > (1) Have a Python library called "sagecore", which is just the most
>> > important standard spkg's (e.g., Singular, PARI, etc.), perhaps
>> > eventually built *only* as shared object
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 8:54 PM, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> Being able to get Sage as a part of PyPI would be great!
> Taking into account how many of Sage spkgs are there, e.g. cython,
> scipy, networkx, cvxopt,
> this looks like the right way of factoring
> out components that are just packaged int
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 3:48 AM, Volker Braun wrote:
> Just to clarify, are we talking about different namespaces
>
> from sagecore.rings import Integers
> from sagemain.modular.all import euler_phi
> from sagecombinat.combinat import choose_nk
>
> This seems a bit unwieldy.
I'm not talking about
