On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 10:01 PM, Joachim Durchholz <[email protected]> wrote:
> Am 03.04.2012 20:30, schrieb Sergiu Ivanov:
>
> This discussion has gotten somewhat circular, and no single posting has
> addressed all points and put them into perspective.
> So that's my other proposal: write up all proposals, enumerate the pros and
> cons of each, then decide.
I will expose my understanding of the situation; it is obviously
biased :-)
Current Ring class (operation-aware elements).
Pros:
* easier manipulation of elements of a ring (a*b instead of
R.mul(a,b));
* is already implemented.
Cons:
* it's somewhat cumbersome to define two different rings over the
same set of elements;
* it is unclear where to store the metadata about ring operations,
because this information seems to belong to the ring, while the
operation itself is implemented in elements;
* more dependencies between classes: elements need information about
the operations, the ring needs information about the operations.
Suggest Ring class (operation-unaware elements).
Pros:
* one can define several rings over the same set of elements without
influencing the elements themselves;
* all concepts are fully gathered in the corresponding classes
(Operation, Ring, Element), which minimises the number of
dependencies between the classes: in this setup, ring depends on
operation;
Cons:
* unwieldy way to apply operations (R.mul(a,b) instead of a*b);
* too verbose for cases where the information about the operation is
not very important.
(We have all seen that both approaches can easily emulate the other
one, so I didn't list emulation on any of these lists).
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.
