On Oct 30, 2:07 am, "Mike Hansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is your code posted anywhere? I'm sure we can come up with a way to > merge the two implementations.
Yes you can see it here: http://github.com/bo198214/hyperops/tree/master/powerseries.py it was originally developed for a different project (so has to be moved/renamed), but I tried to the powerseries class fairly complete. I also included lots of tests in the documentation of the _test method, which pass under sage -t. Our lazy mechanism seems however very different. While you use somehow Stream, I just have a hash table for each power series. As it should be more difficult to implement all the functionality of my code into your code I propose to take my code as a base and add functionality you need that is not contained yet, thereby making the code more round. On Oct 30, 3:01 am, Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > More on topic, much better merge the two and have the best of both > than have competing implementations. Shouldn't this belong in sage/ > rings rather than in combinat? Yes I agree. I also still search a cool name instead of LazyPowerSeriesRing or PowerSeriesRingI, any ideas? I think it should start with PowerSeries or PS as someone who searches for such functionality can use the tab completion then. On the other hand the difference to the standard finite sage.rings.power_series_ring.PowerSeriesRing should be made clear. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
