On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 1:00 AM, François Bissey <f.r.bis...@massey.ac.nz> wrote: >> 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? >> > Never mind _just_ sage what about the other software that links > against pari that is shipped with sage, a quick look from the deps file: > -eclib,
It barely uses Sage; it's just used a tiny bit for factoring, I think. > -genus2reduction (I guess sage is technically upstream there, I'm upstream for that; I doubt the modifications will be difficult. > -lcalc (was does Micheal Rubistein thinks about it? At least it is run time > rather than compile time). If the "linking" is runtime, then it goes through the interpreter, which has a fairly stable API. William > > Francois > > -- > 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. > -- William Stein Associate Professor of Mathematics University of Washington http://wstein.org -- 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.
