On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 9:34:28 AM UTC-7 Oscar wrote: > On Tue, 12 Apr 2022 at 19:26, Matthias Köppe <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> On Sun, Apr 10, 2022 at 7:44 PM Matthias Köppe <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > We are in the early stages of planning an online SageDays event ( > https://wiki.sagemath.org/days112.358). Wondering if some SymPy > developers would be interested in presenting? I think there's a lot of > potential for synergy between the projects. > > I would be interested in coming along and can present on at least some > of these things.
Great! I've put your name down at https://wiki.sagemath.org/days112.358#Activities_and_Speakers Let's figure out the details in the coming weeks. > > - General overview of recent-ish features of SymPy > > - status and plans regarding use of FLINT - the Sage interface to it > misses many of the more recent developments in the FLINT 2.x series ( > https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/31408), so there's a potential for > synergy here > > It would definitely be good to work together on this if possible. Does > SAGE use its own bindings for flint? Yes, see https://github.com/sagemath/sage/tree/develop/src/sage/libs/flint (and also https://github.com/sagemath/sage/tree/develop/src/sage/libs/arb) I've been working a little on > python_flint e.g.: > https://github.com/fredrik-johansson/python-flint/pull/20 > > The python_flint bindings still miss a lot of the newer features from > flint, arb etc. A primary goal though is just to make it more easily > installable. I saw that. Having a cibuildwheel workflow is an important step. This is also something that we're planning for modularized distributions of the Sage library (https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/29705). > > - status and plans regarding SymEngine > > I don't know about the status of SymEngine. I can't say that I can see > any significant work happening on the SymPy side to integrate > SymEngine any further with SymPy. My personal view is that for faster > symbolics a different approach is needed in general but SymEngine > seems to have the same design flaws as SymPy itself in that respect. > > > - status and plans regarding solveset for several variables > > There are no immediate plans for a solveset for several variables > beyond nonlinsolve. There was recent discussion about this on the > mailing list here though: > https://groups.google.com/g/sympy/c/v_YLkX4QuRY Thanks for the pointer. Noted in https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/24142 > > - status and plans regarding the assumptions facility > > I think much like solveset etc there needs to be more organisation > among sympy developers to define what the plans for things like this > should be going forwards. > I'll schedule a discussion on these topics for the SageDays event -- hopefully interested SymPy developers could join. https://wiki.sagemath.org/days112.358#Activities_and_Speakers Details to be fleshed out. I also plan to invite some people from other related communities. Best, Matthias -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/433423ff-3ef7-4c39-b409-8ac812c52e7bn%40googlegroups.com.
