On 02.04.2012 15:30, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
In conclusion, I cannot see how my ideas fundamentally contradict the
approaches evoked in this thread. Therefore, I will try to pose the
dual question: do you think the current Ring class is well-suited for
a future implementation of ring theory? I hope a definite answer to
this question will be more reachable :-)
I think the only reasonable answer is "yes, but ...".
The real problem with this discussion is, imho, that you are trying to
propose a "perfect" framework, without any specific examples to test
"perfectness" against. No matter how much we talk this over, trying to
design code for such a complex system (at least "all of ring theory",
you seem to have even more in mind) on the drawing board is futile (in
my opinion).
Moreover, this proposal seems embedded in your gsoc plans, where it
really does not fit: there is no need or justification for trying to
write a "perfect, all-encompassing object oriented framework" in order
to implement the groebner walk stuff (at the most, I think, this
requires a very specialised framework - most of which I believe can
already be found in domains/).
--
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.
