#19584: Clean up NTL comparisons
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: jdemeyer | Owner:
Type: enhancement | Status: positive_review
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-6.10
Component: cython | Resolution:
Keywords: | Merged in:
Authors: Jeroen Demeyer | Reviewers: Jean-Pierre Flori
Report Upstream: N/A | Work issues:
Branch: | Commit:
u/jdemeyer/ticket/19584 | ff349f5363d23529a5765e8038ac75b7dd0982ea
Dependencies: #19579 | Stopgaps:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Changes (by jpflori):
* status: needs_review => positive_review
* reviewer: => Jean-Pierre Flori
Comment:
Replying to [comment:8 jdemeyer]:
> Replying to [comment:7 jpflori]:
> > This looks good to me.
> >
> > More generally on NTL: do we really need all this "thin" wrappers
which do not seem to be used anywhere in Sage?
>
> I'm not sure if they are all used, but some are certainly used.
I'm not completely convinced.
For example the finite field and polynomial stuff directly uses the C++
classes.
>
> But really, we have thin wrappers for libGAP objects, for PARI objects,
... so why not NTL?
That's a good point.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/19584#comment:9>
Sage <http://www.sagemath.org>
Sage: Creating a Viable Open Source Alternative to Magma, Maple, Mathematica,
and MATLAB
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-trac" 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-trac.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
