#13268: Proposal of a DifferentialAlgebra package, relying on the C BLAD
libraries
---------------------------------------------------------------------+------
Reporter: boulier |
Owner: boulier
Type: task |
Status: new
Priority: major |
Milestone: sage-5.3
Component: packages |
Resolution:
Keywords: package, differential algebra, elimination theory | Work
issues:
Report Upstream: N/A |
Reviewers: Charles Bouillaguet, Karl-Dieter Crisman
Authors: Nicolas M. Thiéry, François Boulier |
Merged in:
Dependencies: |
Stopgaps:
---------------------------------------------------------------------+------
Changes (by {'newvalue': u'Nicolas M. Thi\xe9ry, Fran\xe7ois Boulier',
'oldvalue': ''}):
* owner: Francois.Boulier@… => boulier
* reviewer: => Charles Bouillaguet, Karl-Dieter Crisman
* author: => Nicolas M. Thiéry, François Boulier
Comment:
Pretty minor points, though worth thinking about:
* For helping reviewers, you might want to separate the header file and
the changes in `module_list.py` in a separate patch; I ''think'' that
might make them "viewable" in Trac, given its MB limits for viewing.
* You have a lot of things like {{{R.sort (L)}}} which I presume is valid
Python syntax, but very different from the rest of the documentation,
where we would have {{{R.sort(L)}}}. I don't know how important this is,
but it was a little jarring to me, at least.
* I wonder if maybe it wouldn't be better somewhere (sage/combinat?
sage/rings? I'm not sure where) to put the "main interface", so that the
sage/libs piece is really just for headers and wrapping. You can see that
the files and folders there are really even named after the things, so
that having sage/libs/blad or sage/libs/bmi and then having differential
algebra basic commands elsewhere would be good. You might want to ask
some people who have done these other packages, or poke around the code.
Less minor, I think:
* How many of these doctests would actually work without both of those
packages installed? So most would have to be marked optional with the
correct keyword. It might be worth looking at the way other optional
spkgs handle this maybe the Lie package or the p-group-cohomology one?
* I think we no longer have any double-underscore methods - I can't
remember exactly when this was done, but there was a discussion about this
at Sage Days 40.5, at least. E.g. your {{{__ranking}}}.
Good luck! Looks cool.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/13268#comment:6>
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 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-trac?hl=en.
