Hi all, I use it. Not as much as I used to (my research moved on) but it would be rather if it was gone. I also know that some people in my field use it, i.e. the BooleanPolynomialRing. If that was gone, we'd go from okay-ish to hell-ish for computing with an object which quite naturally arises in crypto and related fields.
I'm also up for helping out with maintenance: > 1. We adopt the route that we took with Pynac (as a fork of Ginac). Our > fork might in the future become tightly coupled with Sage, but we > maintain it as a separate package outside of Sage. > > 2. We make a minimal fork, only include the minimal changes necessary to > build polybori without scons. If more substantive changes are needed, we > include those in the Sage library. Being ignorant of some of the issues around Pynac, (1) would allow us to attract outside contributions more easily. Not sure how realistic that is, though. I'll point some of the usual suspects to this thread, let's see what happens. Cheers, Martin On Wednesday 10 Jun 2015 19:39:11 William Stein wrote: > Hi, > > Can somebody (say at least 3-5 people) who actually *use* polybori on > a somewhat regular basis make some supporting remarks? I personally > have used polybori for anything, nor do I really know of anybody else > who has. If there aren't at least a few people who use it regularly, > then we should consider making it an optional package. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
