On Sep 17, 12:37 pm, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Jason, > > Just a heads up -- your code above is going to become pointless when we switch > to using Ginac as a backend for symbolic manipulation, since Sage will no > longer > keep its own expression tree.
Thanks for the heads up. The code above would be "pointless" even if Ginac weren't in the pipeline--it's surely full of holes. The point was just to try to get a working version of the idea across. Once the Ginac code lands, will there be a way to represent formal integration? Could there be? Would it look like this, or would you want it to? Regards, JM --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
