On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 10:10 PM, Tom Bachmann <[email protected]> wrote: >> Tom, I think I understand your points, but I'd still like to ask you >> whether you find it acceptable to have the classes I have suggested in >> SymPy? >> > > To be honest I don't really care (other than that, most of the time, new > code in sympy is good news). Don't get me wrong, I'm really interested in > ring theory in sympy, in fact I'm working on getting something started [1] > [2].
Yes, sure, I do understand. > But if your proposal is basically to change the class hierarchy *above* > the current Ring class, then that's not really going to affect me, is it? Yes, if don't go above the current Ring class in the class hierarchy. > As I have tried say time and again, neither will it affect your code > as far as I can tell, but if you want to spend time and energy on > discussing and then implementing some sort of abstract framework, be > my guest. Well, I actually had in mind to base my implementation of the Groebner walk off these classes, this is why I was so eager about discussing the topic. 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.
