On Mar 27, 11:13 pm, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think it's worth rethiking our _foo_init_ methods a little and allowing > a tiny bit more than a single string that has to eval to the object. > However, it's critical that we don't do something that is at all complicated > or "nicely overengineered" or we'll possibly end up like openmath. > So what are your latest thoughts? Is there anything slightly less > simple than "a single string" that does what is needed?
This is the simplest thing I could think of that: a) gives very nice output, the sort of thing that somebody might actually type in (using reasonable variable names, without lots of redundant coercions all over the place, etc.), and b) is very, very simple to add to a class (because all the complexity is in a single module, that I'm planning to write). Relaxing either of these goals would indeed allow for a much simpler scheme. I said "overengineered" for two reasons: I had the above two goals in mind, which I'm not sure were important to other people in the discussion; and because my proposal actually seemed a little bit too detailed for a "rough proposal". I'm actually a little upset here... I put a fair bit of effort into thinking about this, and it feels like that's all getting discarded because of a poor word choice on my part. Could you try reading the proposal again, except ignore the word "overengineered", and see if you can come up with a more substantive response than "possibly end up like openmath"? Carl --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
