Thanks for reviewing the proposal. > > > 1. Remove incompatibilities between the old and new assumptions. > > [...] This project aims to correct that by adding a compatibility > > layer between the old and the new assumptions. > Is such a compatibility layer needed? > From previous discussion, I have been under the impression that it is > not, but then I haven't followed it very closely. > > I thought the shift from old-assumptions to new assumptions was too big a change for previous users to completely deprecate them in one go. So we keep both for some time and gradually remove the old ones.
> > 2. Since we ultimately want to shift to the new assumptions system. > > Make a few core components ( symbol, Add, Mul, etc ) use the new > > assumptions system and expand gradually. > > Sounds like a good plan to me. > BTW I think this alone could well be enough work for a full GSoC. Making > changes of this kind involves not just review, but also writing > documentation and unit tests. These can easily double or triple the > total amount of work (but are *very* important). > > In retrospect, I now think that I bit off more than I could chew. They will take a much longer time than I expected. Thanks for pointing it out. > > 3. instead of, > >>> facts = Q.positive(x) & Q.real(x) & Q.commutative(x) > >>> facts &= Q.positive(y) & Q.real(y) & Q.commutative(y) > >>> facts &= Q.positive(z) & Q.real(z) & Q.commutative(z) > > we could do something as > >>> factset = Q.positive & Q.real & Q.commutative > >>> facts=factset.apply(x, y, z) > > That's a very cool idea. > If requires some changes to the API of Q, and probably some background > in higher-order functions. > Can you say a bit about how Q's API would look for that? I.e. a list of > functions that need to be made (or modified), and what each would do. > > I'm not sure that the new assumptions system is ready for this addition > right now. > > If you think so, we could do it as a separate project. I think a few changes in Predicate class will do the trick. > Timeline Week-2 > I suspect that making the old system interpret new assumptions isn't > going to work very well. > Logic inference algorithms tend to break down if you work with just a > subset of a body of known facts. > > Overall, I suspect you're trying to do too much in too little time. > I may be wrong :-) > Just my thoughts. I bet others will have other things to say. > > Regards, > Jo > I have updated the proposal. (read: reduced some load) Thanks Aaditya M Nair -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sympy" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sympy. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/6be25e1f-9af1-4a03-94a4-c4d9b44c98ee%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
