On Sat, Sep 29, 2007 at 05:23:38AM +0200, Ondrej Certik wrote: [...]
> I'll myself try to work on limits to get it run, either the old core > or new core limits. Also it's time to rethink the basic class > hierarchy in SymPy, maybe renaming some classes etc. Pearu is also > trying new ideas in the sympy-sandbox branch -- do you have some more > clear ideas what features you would like to have in sympy.core? I myself *very* need SymPy to be faster. For example it takes me a lot of time to just wait for tests passing. > It > would be awesome, if we could cleanly separate it (even to a separate > project, and just copy it to sympy, like we do with pyglet, so that > endusers are not affected at all), I do not think separating sympy.core into its own project is a good idea. The reason is that not only core affects everything else, but everything else also affects core and it's design. So having both core and 'high-level' stuff in one place will help to improve *both*. I agree that structuring things is good, but we are already on that road, right? I think what we really need to be able to experiment easily is a more distributed development model. This could be slightly ooftopic, but an interested reader could go to: http://svk.bestpractical.com/view/HomePage and also: http://darcs.net/ http://www.selenic.com/mercurial/wiki/ http://git.or.cz/ -- Всего хорошего, Кирилл. http://landau.phys.spbu.ru/~kirr/aiv/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sympy" 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/sympy?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
