By choosing to be an exception in the Python world, Sage obviously does something quite wrong.
Can someone who is not Dima or Matthias explain to us how it is possible that they both are claiming to represent the normal Python way of doing things? There have been numerous statements by both of them about this, which makes it sound like there are two pieces to it (modularization but also "de-vendoring"), and I can only assume that it would be possible for both to occur simultaneously. It would be helpful for this to be clarified, though, so that one knows precisely what *piece* of their proposals represent the "normal Python ecosystem". That said, "normal Python" is not necessarily as relevant for those who would *only* want Sage, or at least mostly so. Having just another Python package might lead us to implementing powers as ** instead of ^, which would be a regression, or needing namespaces for almost everything, which again limits the value of Sage qua Sage. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/dde441e4-e5ab-4d44-b898-90193e0c46dfn%40googlegroups.com.
