Forwarding Ola's reply, since it didn't make it to the list.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Ola Skavhaug <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Nov 26, 2007 1:00 PM Subject: Re: using sympy for a lightweight FE module To: Ondrej Certik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: [email protected], [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ola Skavhaug <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Ondrej Certik skrev den 26/11-2007 følgende: > > So it seems that several people at the same time feel that sympy would > > be good for generating FE bases at least, in terms of either tabulated > > data in common sets of quadrature points, or a generated C(++) code, to > > be re-used later. Thanks for sending your code. I think we could start a > > new project (at googlecode?) using your code as a good start. Are you ok > > with a BSD license? > > Yes, let's do that. However, there should be a leader, who will push > things forward and make sure it is coordinated. Is anyone willing to > do it? > > Yes, I actually prefer BSD to GPL, especially now with those GPL 2 and > GPL3 incompatibility. > > What name to use - SymFEM? It needs to be a name, that is easy to > google, symfem is. > > How about calling sympy by default, so that it works in pure python > (easy to install, works on windows/linux/mac os x for free), and > calling swiginac optionally for speed? And also trying to speed sympy > up (my bet is on Cython[1]). This means converging with the interface > of swiginac and sympy. Since I am a coauthor of both, it shouldn't be > that difficult. > But swiginac is now under the hood of Ola Skavhaug, I didn't really > touch it for two years - but I think Ola will also be interested in > that (CCing him)? See related posts to sympy mailinglist[2]. > Hi sympy team, I'm interested in this issue, and as Kent-Andre Mardal sits approx. 150cm from my office, we are quite synchronized. Actually, since the sympy license is less restrictive than that of GiNaC, I'm considering using sympy as backend to some of my software instead of swiginac. Defaulting to a cross platform backend sounds resonable, although it currently comes at the price of performance. Ideally, the only syntax difference in sympy and swiginac should be the import statement. Today, this is not 100% the case. Perhaps we should have a discussion regarding this issue? It would be possible to add a wrapper layer in Python layer a-la Symbolic, but I don't think it makes enough sense to justify the cost of maintenance. There will always be differences in the set of provided features, but it would be nice if the intersection in functionality shared a common syntax (and semantics). Ola > > Ondrej > > [1] http://cython.org/ [2] > http://groups.google.com/group/sympy/browse_thread/thread/cdf44eebad6c1237 > http://groups.google.com/group/sympy/browse_thread/thread/f73b00d1bdf0255a --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
