On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 09:48:25 -0700 (PDT) Jean-Pierre Flori <[email protected]> wrote:
> Maybe it is a good thing to keep the same order as ginac internally > and your more usual ordering for printing. It is good to keep the ginac ordering internally. The user friendly ordering is more expensive so it slows down computations, even when you don't print intermediate expressions. > However if you'd better not duplicate code, I can look at the "- > x^2+x^2" part of bug #9046. > Now I may understand a big enough part of pynac code to do that. That's right. You're one of the few people who spent so much time staring at pynac code. :) > But if you'd better use the above patch, that won't be necessary. I would like to replace the orders completely. I wanted to attack this problem for a long time. Now that we started, we might as well finish. :) Can you help put the patch in usable shape? At the moment the ordering it defines is completely different from the one we use in Sage. This must be because I changed some signs while I was copying code. If you can make the ordering consistent, I can fix the other relevant places (op(), etc.). Thanks. Burcin -- To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support URL: http://www.sagemath.org
