On Monday, March 23, 2015 at 2:18:27 AM UTC-7, François wrote: > > Usually yes, but that thing is serious and has been on my radar for the > last > year. > It will get real serious if they can build maxima on top of it. >
That will be a long way off. They don't (and also they don't claim to) implement common lisp. It's just python with a lispy syntax. In any case, we would get hardly any benefit from it. The problems interfacing with maxima do not arise from a runtime barrier. We have a very good interface (the strings one has its issues, mainly on the maxima-to-sage side, but the binary one has full information). The problems arise from differences in data model and that wouldn't change by changing the underlying engine. And most problems there are the same as what we see in the problems between Pynac and the rest of sage. -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
