Le mercredi 04 mai 2011 à 10:37 +0100, Tom Bachmann a écrit : > On 02.05.2011 19:57, Aaron S. Meurer wrote: > > I agree that Frederik's idea is an interesting one, but we would need to > > have other people who understand it well if we were to attempt to > > implement it. If you could write something up on the wiki, it would go a > > long way towards this. > > I wrote up my view of the algebras model. Obviously the typical > disclaimers apply: I don't know sympy very well, I don't really know > sympycore at all, bla bla. Please comment. > > Ondrej, Ronan: I hope this answers your questions as well. > Thanks for the write-up. It does confirm what I had been thinking: this model basically amounts to rewriting sympy in a Lispish rather than Pythonic style - consider, for instance, (ADD, (x, y, 5)) vs Add(x, y, 5). Besides that, I don't see anything that couldn't be done with the current design, replacing "the object's algebra" with "the object's class" and with the equivalences Verbatim == Basic, Calculus == Expr, Algebra == BasicMeta, CachingAlgebra == AssumeMeths, etc. but I'm probably overlooking something.
Also, I get the impression that this doesn't solve any problem with the assumptions, while assumptions and caching are an additional problem to solve for this model. -- 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.
