On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 3:13 AM, William Stein <wst...@gmail.com> wrote: > We should definitely move to PARI 2.4. We haven't only because it is > indeed a monumental task. Perhaps I'll do the move, since I wrote > most of the Sage wrapper of PARI anyways, and surely porting is much > less work than writing the whole wrapper in the first place. If > anybody wants to help, please volunteer. For starters:
I'm willing to help, but not lead, on this effort. > * What is the relevant trac ticket? > > * Whoever tried last (Nick?), can they summarize some of the issues > they encountered. Yes, please do. What's so significative about the API changes in pari 2.4? > It could be worth moving straight to the pari 2.4 series for Sage-5.0. +1 If api changes are indeed relevant, syncing the changes with a 5.0 release of sage seems very sensible. Note that the latest released version of pari is 2.4.2.alpha, dated dec/2007... is this what we should aim for, or the svn HEAD? > In case there is confusion, I had some long chats about Pari 2.4 > versus 2.3 with Karim Belebas (lead Pari dev) last time I was in > Bordeaux. The Pari 2.4 series is the one anybody should use if they > can use it. It's meant to be solid for normal research applications. > The reason it is called "unstable" is because the C API is not stable, > i.e., the PARI devs reserve the right to change the C API from version > to version. If the C API is not stable, changes they do may bite the Sage interface at some point? Gonzalo -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-devel+unsubscribegooglegroups.com or reply to this email with the words "REMOVE ME" as the subject.
