On 2024-04-20 15:33:51, Matthias Koeppe wrote:
> Michael, I think you may be using too much jargon to get your point across
> to the general readership of this list.
>
> Let's maybe use this opportunity to make this as concrete as possible and
> explain it in the most plain terms.
> What
On Saturday, April 20, 2024 at 1:01:33 PM UTC-7 Dima Pasechnik wrote:
On 20 April 2024 19:34:49 BST, Matthias Koeppe
wrote:
SageMath is already pip-installable.
>That was one of the first deliverables of the modularization project,
>completed in 2021.
>See
On Sunday, April 21, 2024 at 2:30:15 AM UTC-7 Martin R wrote:
Why would you separate mathematics into packages that have no more external
dependencies from others, which at the same time may grow internal
dependencies over time?
Let's just go through the list of distribution packages and
On Saturday, April 20, 2024 at 1:01:33 PM UTC-7 Dima Pasechnik wrote:
Anyway, a normal Python pypi-installable package comes with binary wheels,
i e. things are pre-built, and it's merely matter of downloading these to
get a functional package. Few minutes on a fast network, not hours.
By
On Sunday, April 21, 2024 at 2:30:15 AM UTC-7 Martin R wrote:
I can imagine that it would make sense to make as much as possible into
runtime dependencies - you wrote below that building the dependencies takes
a lot of time. Maybe that's the core problem, I don't know.
If you want to know,
On Sunday, April 21, 2024 at 9:42:24 AM UTC-5 Nathan Dunfield wrote:
For the statements in this thread, I don't see any contradictions about the
definition of the "normal Python way of doing things". My understanding of
that term is to post *self-contained* binary wheels to PyPI for all
On Saturday, April 20, 2024 at 5:01:04 PM UTC-5 kcrisman wrote:
Can someone who is not Dima or Matthias explain to us how it is possible
that they both are claiming to represent the normal Python way of doing
things? There have been numerous statements by both of them about this,
which makes
Dear Matthias,
This doesn't make sense to me. Why would you separate mathematics into
packages that have no more external dependencies from others, which at the
same time may grow internal dependencies over time?
I can imagine that it would make sense to make as much as possible into
runtime
On Tuesday, April 9, 2024 at 3:36:32 PM UTC-7 Kwankyu Lee wrote:
1. The directories *.ci, .devcontainer, .github/workflows*. These are
special directories that control the GitHub workflows that run for example
on pull requests and when release tags are pushed.
2. The files *tox.ini* and
On Saturday, April 20, 2024 at 3:23:12 PM UTC-7 Michael Orlitzky wrote:
in its current incarnation, the modularization relies
heavily on the sage distribution vendoring. Conflict arises because the
modularization is cited as a blocker whenever someone wants to pare
down or disentangle some
On Saturday, April 20, 2024 at 3:01:04 PM UTC-7 kcrisman wrote:
"normal Python" is not necessarily as relevant for those who would *only*
want Sage, or at least mostly so. Having just another Python package might
lead us to implementing powers as ** instead of ^, which would be a
regression,
On Monday, June 12, 2023 at 4:54:21 PM UTC-7 Nathan Dunfield wrote:
On Monday, June 12, 2023 at 2:58:18 PM UTC-4 Matthias Koeppe wrote:
What parts of Sage does SnapPy use?
Primarily the various rings/fields, including matrices over them and basic
linear algebra.
In the present design
12 matches
Mail list logo
