On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 8:35 AM, Gary Furnish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I've been trying to get an answer for this question for the last few > weeks: Is the plan to extend ginac (write algorithms in C) or to > extend sage (write new algorithms in Sage) using cython/python?
The plan is definitely to "extend sage (write new algorithms in Sage) using cython/python". > To put the question somewhat differently, are > algorithms using the new symbolics system going to be use GiNaC/pynac > enough that switching to any other low level system will be very, very > difficult (because new code such as sums may depend directly on GiNaC > specific behavior)? Probably not. > If this is not intended, what will be done to try > to prevent Sage from becoming overly dependent on GiNaC in the long > term? Make it so sympy also runs on top of GiNaC. This will force the creation of a clear interface specification. -- William --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@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-devel URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
