Yes, with some pointers I guess I can pull it off. But re-writing would make it set once for all. That is what I think.
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 5:58 PM, mmarco <mma...@unizar.es> wrote: > Amit, how do you feel about that patching? Do you feel capable of doing it? > > El sábado, 3 de mayo de 2014 22:29:23 UTC+2, Amit Jamadagni escribió: > >> Hello all, >> We (me under the mentorship of Miguel) have been working on >> the implementation of Knot theory in Sage as a part of GSoC 2014 and would >> like to hear your thoughts on the following subject. >> We got introduced to the Braid progamme (http://www.layer8.co.uk/ >> maths/braids/index.htm) project as we were looking out for Vogel's >> algorithm implementation. Coming to the details of Braid project it has >> been written in C++ and has some extensive results pertaining to Braid word >> representation. It would be great if the community could comment on the >> issue below: >> >> Would it be great to rewrite the entire code or just wrap the present >> code. (This has been posed keeping in mind that the community supports the >> idea "building the car instead of reinventing the wheel" because of the >> following reasons). >> >> We are yet to know the license on which the above project has been >> shipped. >> >> If the author is happy then we are thinking of re-implementing the most >> important parts and writing wrappers for the rest as a temporary solution >> (during the coding period) and then move onto re-implement the rest of the >> project (after the summer) [The re-implementation would help in maintaining >> the code]. >> >> Some might comment saying " Why to reinvent the wheel if wrappers are >> present ?? " >> We had problems compiling the braid project using gcc 4.7, it worked fine >> using the older versions. So we cannot guarantee that wrappers would work >> on every system. >> And as mentioned above, re-implementation might help in >> effective maintenance of the code. >> >> So we have come to the conclusion that the code must be rewritten but it >> would be done in phases. >> >> If there could be a better way out, it would be of great help if we could >> be notified. >> >> If it turns out to be negative (in sense the license does not meet the >> expectations) then re-writing the entire logic would be the only option >> remaining.(We are losing out on wrappers for some good code for a temporary >> period of time). >> >> Hoping to hear from the community.Thanks. >> >> Amit. >> > -- > 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 http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
