On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 4:57 PM, Justin C. Walker <jus...@mac.com> wrote: > > On May 25, 2012, at 16:07 , William Stein wrote: > >> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 3:41 PM, Justin C. Walker <jus...@mac.com> wrote: >>> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Ivan Andrus <darthand...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> [X] Don't make it standard and close the ticket. Include as optional >>>> package. >> >> I'm curious -- why are people against sage-mode being a standard package? > > For me, it's not about "sage-mode": it's got more to do with the number of > moving parts. Fewer is better, all things equal, and we ought to put things > into Sage if there are really good reasons. > > If it's standard, tests are needed. > > Also, emacs, as delivered on a given platform may not change much, but a > number of people use GUI versions of the app, which are separate from the > regular distributions (Mac OS X, for example). Version change for those apps > is unpredictable, and based on the user. > > Is emacs even a standard part of Linux distributions? > > Finally, I think most emacs users would have little problem installing an > optional package, while most non emacs users aren't interested :-} That's a > rash generalization, but it resonates... > > One guy's opinion... > > Justin >
I agree with Justin; well put. -- Benjamin Jones -- 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
