On 03.04.2012 19:32, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
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.
Yes we have talked about this at length. That isn't what I thought ronan
was complaining about, though.
--
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.
