On Apr 1, 2008, at 2:03 PM, John Cremona wrote: > On 01/04/2008, Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Yes. We're making good progress on the new coercion model (David Roe >> and I were working on it last night, he finished Rings), but it is >> not 3.0 material (both for timing and stability reasons). >> > Thanks for the explanation. > >> To find out what the "new coercion model" is see http:// >> wiki.sagemath.org/days7/coercion . It is orthogonal to most >> development but I think you in particular keep hearing a lot >> about it >> because it was created to address exactly the kinds of concerns and >> annoyances with Sage that you so often bring up :). > > Who, me?
Yes. Finding and reporting bugs is a good thing :). Thanks. > Also, if someone >> proposes doing something that is a complete reduplication of work >> that either has been done (or is rendered unnecessary) by the >> coercion fixes I try and point that out. > > That is useful. I have some code almost ready to go which might well > fit into that category. Well, I'm not trying to stop people from writing good code, and lots of times it will be useful even if it has to be re-factored to fit into the still-not-ready-for-prime-time system. - Robert --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
