> I could also imagine to have three layers:
>
> * a core distribution with absolutely minimal dependencies and only
dependencies which have proved stable on all supported platforms
>
> This is exactly sagemath-categories. It has absolutely minimal
dependencies.
Would it make sense to give this a different name like Dima's
suggestion of sagemath-core or something else like sagemath-base,
sagemath-minimal etc?
I think all of these options are much less expressive than the current
choice.
Anything named *-minimal* could describe pretty much any arbitrary choice.
(It's "minimal" for *what*?)
Likewise *-core* could mean pretty much anything. There are many other
things that are arguably the "core" of Sage.
And *sagemath-categories* is definitely not the *-base*; below it in the
dependency graph there is sagemath-objects (an even smaller subset).
Thank you for clarifying the intention. I would never have guessed this
meaning from the name `sagemath-categories`. I think that
`sagemath--minimal-dependencies` would be clear, wouldn't it?
I have now two more questions:
* why are some classes without any dependencies missing from what's
currently named `sagemath-categories`? I don't know how to do a systematic
search, so I only checked the ones I know well, and `GrowthDiagram` is not
there, but is pure python.
* wouldn't it be better to tag dependencies, rather than having to
explicitly put something into what's currently `sagemath-categories`? I
imagine that it will be a constant source of confusion whether to put some
new functionality into all.py or all__sagemath_categories.py
Best wishes,
Martin
--
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/259db2d3-6cae-4fa7-916c-0eab5dc9cac2n%40googlegroups.com.
