On 9/8/07, Ondrej Certik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The idea of incorporating Ginac into Sage was discussed some time ago > > in this list. > > Now I see that in its page there is a link to some python bindings for Ginac > > > > http://pyginac.sourceforge.net/ > > > > This could be useful for us, however they use boost rather than cython/pyrex > > You can also use swiginac, that I wrote together with Ola Skavhaug: > > http://swiginac.berlios.de/ > > It's using SWIG, instead of boost-python, that I find very cumbersome > to use. But I am not working on it anymore, since it's difficult to > extend ginac with new features and I started SymPy instead. But I > think Ola is still using it.
So far, from everything I've seen I think sympy + whatever we already do in SAGE is the best way forward for pure symbolic manipulation in SAGE. I'll include the latest version of sympy (version 0.5.3) in sage-2.8.4.1 so people can take a look at it. See http://code.google.com/p/sympy/wiki/Changes for what's been happening with sympy lately. In the long run (which for me means "1 year") it seems to me that the only way to have excellent symbolic manipulation in SAGE is that it's going to have to get written "from scratch" since Maxima (and several other systems) are just too archaic. The sympy developers are hard at work at exactly such a project, and I hope people with an interest in calculus/symbolic computation will try out what they're doing, subscribe to their mailing list, post bugs, etc. -- William --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://sage.scipy.org/sage/ and http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage/ -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
