It seems to me that the use of python matching programs for implementing Rubi suggest that this (or other?) matching programs were too slow to be effective. From a brief scan through the papers, it seems that the authors do not compare their programs with programs that have been written by others. This makes the whole enterprise somewhat suspicious. Should you depend on this library? The fact that you have ever even considering string representations furthermore suggests you should do some further investigation of the literature before plunging into writing code.
RJF On Sunday, November 12, 2017 at 7:04:38 AM UTC-8, Eric Gourgoulhon wrote: > > Hi, > > Le dimanche 12 novembre 2017 14:45:54 UTC+1, Ralf Stephan a écrit : >> >> Is the documentation really so bad that you couldn't find >> >> http://doc.sagemath.org/html/en/reference/calculus/sage/symbolic/expression_conversions.html >> >> Of course Sage uses pattern matching, e.g. to convert expressions. >> I'm not reverting that positive on that ticket but I urge the author to >> rewrite it. >> >> > Yes for sure, I will rewrite it using the expression tree walker, but in > another ticket. #24199 <https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/24199> simply > ammends a previous version that was based on string representations. To go > further and introduce new simplification rules, I of course agree that it > is much more robust to use the expression tree. > > Best regards, > > Eric. > > -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
