Am 19.04.2015 um 15:31 schrieb Tom Bachmann:
The testing philosophy I went for with meijerint was to look at a lot of
common "book" integrals and make sure the algorithm can do them. What this
means may not be entirely clear. But certainly we want to have a definite
integral returned in elementary terms, and non-vacuous conditions under
which the result is true. But there is definitely no *correct* answer.
So: If you change something about the internals of the algorithm, expect a
lot of tests to fail. The thing to do is to ensure the new results are
mathematically equivalent
So I guess if I find changes that make tests fail, I'll have to verify
that old and new result are mathematically equivalent.
> and at least as "nice" (simple) as before. This
> is unfortunately very tedious.
This is going to be a real problem. Even if I see some specific
integrals become worse, this might be compensated by other integrals
becoming better. And vice versa, of course.
I have no way to know whether I'm improving or damaging SymPy on that front.
One last set of question here:
What was your overall strategy when choosing heuristics?
Was that strategy in some way derived from the SymPy's term sort order?
(If no, improvement and loss will tend to cancel each other out and I
can stop worrying about this.)
--
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/553C115F.40404%40durchholz.org.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
