On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 3:40 PM, jplab <jeanphilippela...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
> Allow me to jump in the discussion as a daily "Sage user" of code using the
> ppl backend in the Polyhedron class.
> I put the "Sage user" in quotes, because it seems that it was used for
> different types of users.
> What's in for the normal strictly routine not-developing user?
> Well, IMHO more transparency about libraries used. Basically, I just figured
> out where the wrapper for ppl was(!).
> Ok, perhaps I'm ignorant or stupid; but to me, it seems like making pplpy
> and gmpy2 standard packages
> is not a revolutionary idea that is going to break everything, or is it?
>> - no Standard Sage user is asked to know or use gmpy2 or pplpy.
>> These are respectively used as gmp data transition and backend
>> for polyhedra
> Further, I believe that the strictly routine not-developing user will not
> notice the difference as the vast majority
> (of the users of sage that I know) are not even aware that there is such a
> thing as a "python integer" and a
> "Sage integer" and they keep on using Sage despite some of its
> incongruities. So if we speak of those users,
> I can not really see how any smelly unpleasantness would be laid down on
> their heads by making ppl available
> through a standard library as opposed to being Cython wrapped.
+1 the vast majority of routine users do not care about such
implementation details. It is a minority of users who do, and if we
retain backwards compatibility at first, and transition instructions,
those few users who care (and are generally more advanced) are able to
adapt. In the long run it's win-win for everyone.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.