On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Tom Bachmann <[email protected]> wrote: > On 02.04.2012 21:50, Ronan Lamy wrote: >> >> Le lundi 02 avril 2012 à 21:28 +0100, Tom Bachmann a écrit : >>> >>> 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 ...". >> >> >> For me, the answer is clearly no. > > > Why? I see how much of the polys algorithms are implemented by disagreeable > methods (i.e. C-like interfaces), but isn't the domains stuff nicely object > oriented?
That's right but, from my perspective, it doesn't model the underlying mathematics in a proper way. Sergiu -- 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.
