On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 12:32:54 +0100 "Ondrej Certik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 10:31 AM, Burcin Erocal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > <snip> > > We will have a completely new implementation of summation, > > independent of the one in Maxima. At the moment I have an > > implementation of the theoretical framework which lets you solve > > much more complicated sums than the ones above. Unfortunately, > > coming up with an interface that spares the user from the gory > > details of the theory will still be a challenge. Thus, it will be > > some time before these problems are handled natively in Sage, but > > then Sage will (hopefully) be more capable than the others out > > there. > > Is it still a plan to make the symbolic package standalone, or will > this by tied and work only with the whole Sage? In this case, my code depends very much on Sage, but it is very likely that it will only be used to handle certain types of expressions, where simpler and faster algorithms are used to simplify most input. You might be able to separate those to be in a package that can work without Sage, though I don't worry about this when I am coding. For pynac, the situation is completely different. While it is also dependent on Sage at the moment, if you choose to use it for sympy, I can make the interface between Sage and pynac clearer, and transfer some of the glue code from Sage to pynac so that it's usable from pure python. It might be better to wait a bit for pynac to mature before doing this though. Cheers, Burcin --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
