> One of the issues right now is that sage's piecewise is a completely > separate class then the rest of the calculus library. I think it > should descend from symbolic expression and be on the same level as, > e.g. sin and addition (and probably even have a pynac counterpart). > Letting the operands be the conditions (as symbolic equations, giving > much more flexibility then we now have) and the corresponding > expressions (as symbolic equations) would allow it to fit into the > symbolic ring nicely. This would have the advantage that one could > leverage all the generic SR functionality like subs, pow, > composition, etc. without having to re-implement it for every method > that's missing.
Exactly. In fact, that is how Piecewise works in sympy. So I think pynac has to know how to properly dispatch stuff like .subs(), .series() and other things into the Piecewise class (after it is integrated into the calculus). And I know it is possible to do that with Cython. Btw, how about pattern matching? Will you extend the C++ code in ginac to handle Piecewise functions? The other option is to reimplement the .subs(), .series() and pattern matching in Python. Burcin, please don't take my comments as sarcastic --- I am really interested how to handle this and how to cooperate as much as possible. Also, how will you approach to fix the bug in pynac series I reported here: http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel/msg/a59f3c5d0586766b E.g. will you fix ginac, or rather reimplement it in Cython/Python? You can actually still use Maxima for that, so that's not a problem in fact. And later just reimplement it in Python/Cython. Ondrej --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-support@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-support URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
