Hi! Suprise, there exists a tutorial for PolyBoRi. http://polybori.sourceforge.net/doc/tutorial/index.html
It is available in tex-format under doc/tutorial/tutorial.tex in our source distribution. think it would be nice, to include it in the SAGE documentation in some way. I started this discussion privately with Martin and Burcin and move it now to the list, since it is a general problem about third party documentation. This tutorial aims to introduce into the efficient use of PolyBoRi. It is written for PolyBoRi 0.3.1 (using our Boost::python bindings, which are very similar). We have seen two main options until now: - leave the original documentation as it is and provide a link - redoing them in a SAGE style Of course, the first option will provide a good solution now (much better not including it for the next months). However, if we really want to compete with the many "M"'s, then this probably won't suffice. So, what is the best way to include it in SAGE? Am 31.03.2008 um 16:17 schrieb Burcin Erocal: > Hello, > > On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 14:45:16 +0100 > Martin Albrecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> The least Sage should do is to explicitly state somewhere that one >> can use >> PolyBoRi in `PolyBoRi-mode` from within Sage and link to the >> tutorial. > > Sage does not install the real PolyBoRi wrappers, so the environment > you get would be a pseudo PolyBoRi-mode. We can add support for > anything that doesn't exist in Sage easily though. > >> Whether the tutorial should be included in the Sage documentation >> is probably >> something that should be escalated to [sage-devel] since this opens >> the >> general question about `third-party documentation`. Michael, can >> you ask on >> [sage-devel]? >> >> Btw. I don't really know how many people actually use the Sage >> documentation, >> I wouldn't consider it very good (at least the reference manual is >> pretty >> bad). >> >> Another idea could be to re-do the PolyBoRi tutorial in Sage style, >> i.e. >> >> sage: B.<x,y,z> = BooleanPolynomialRing() >> >> ? > > I think this is what we should do eventually. If ever there is > time. :) > Good point. >> About M4RI: I plan to check your modifications and make a new >> release soon-ish >> and I will probably work on Strassen during dev1, but I cannot >> promise >> anything, I'm not really familiar with that one yet. Strassen + >> M4RI should >> beat Magma's dense LA over GF(2). >> >> Cheers, >> Martin >> >> PS: If I find time next weekend I want to spend some time updating >> Sage's >> PolyBoRi to 0.3.1 > There is a new version for BoolePolynomial.h, which you should fetch from our sourceforge-CVS. > Michael, maybe you can help with writing the doctests for the new > functions in the PolyBoRi wrappers. As you know best how those > functions, especially the nontrivial ones, should behave and as long > as > the interface doesn't change, we'd be checking the correctness of > PolyBoRi itself with the tests. > I can do so, tell me, where you need help. > Best regards, Michael --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
