On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 5:58 AM, Henryk Trappmann <bo198...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > On Mar 26, 5:07 am, mabshoff <mabsh...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> Well, I will not merge a second implementation as long as there is no >> clear roadmap for resolving the problem. > > The basic functionality of Mike's powerseries class is also contained > in my class. > That is add, multiply, power, composition, shift, differentiate and > integrate. > I also changed my implementation that now a recursive define is > possible according to Ralf Hemmecke's suggestion in this thread. > I can incorporate any additional functionality from Mike's > implementation after consulting him, also about about sage style and > conventions etc. > > Is this a roadmap of resolving the problem?
1. Make sure your code has functionality that is >= Mike's power series code. 2. Make sure your code has 100% doctest coverage. 3. Post a Sage (Mercurial patch) to trac that adds your code, removes Mike's code, but doesn't break anything else in Sage. 4. Get your code refereed. > Or is there a special need to start with Mike's implementation as base? There is no a priori special need to do that. We just don't want to confuse users/developers with duplicated functionality. > > Henryk > > > > -- William Stein Associate Professor of Mathematics University of Washington http://wstein.org --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
