William Stein writes:
> Good point. Also, I'm for making the user type
>
>import something.or.other
>
> **explicitly**, rather than having it pre-imported on startup. Of
> course, the import command will be documented.
I see your point. But is
"You need an explicit import, and a warning
On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 5:43 PM, leif wrote:
> Johan S. H. Rosenkilde wrote:
>>> leif wrote:
>>> Well, depends on /what/ you write there...
>>>
>>> At least mentioning the different notions of skew polynomial evaluation
>>> (and that currently only one, and which, is implemented) shouldn't hurt.
>
>
> If a Sage developer builds module B on an @experimental module A, it
> puts no further burden on a developer who wants to later modify A: s/he
> will in either case need to fix B. @experimental modules are often
> introduced, as is the case in #13215, by developers who wish to use it
> th
On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 10:09 AM, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> On 2016-08-15 20:25, William Stein wrote:
>>
>> It would be more standard to have an
>> explicit library import, which -- on import -- would print out
>> something about it being experimental and unstable.
>
>
> Whether it's a separate lib
On 2016-08-15 20:25, William Stein wrote:
It would be more standard to have an
explicit library import, which -- on import -- would print out
something about it being experimental and unstable.
Whether it's a separate library or part of Sage doesn't really matter
for this discussion. So I rea
> That thread doesn't mention @experimental or decorators explicitly.
Well, you're replying to Daniel Krenn's comment: he points at a public
branch, explicitly mentioning that it introduces
sage.misc.superseded.experimental which "acts like a deprecation, but
giving a FutureWarning stating that th
On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 8:14 AM, Johan S. H. Rosenkilde
wrote:
>> Regarding this whole @experimental discussion (I never heard of
>> @experimental until just now), it seems like yet another case of
>> trying to use some awkward mechanism to get around ignorance of Python
>> packaging and modules.
> Regarding this whole @experimental discussion (I never heard of
> @experimental until just now), it seems like yet another case of
> trying to use some awkward mechanism to get around ignorance of Python
> packaging and modules. Python has this amazing thing called
> "Python libraries" and a
On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 5:43 AM, leif wrote:
> What Sage IMHO really lacks is a true development (vs. stable) branch,
> along with different releases (for "developers" as opposed to "ordinary"
> users),[...]
This is mostly due to lack of people resources relative to the number
of people and size
Johan S. H. Rosenkilde wrote:
>> leif wrote:
>> Well, depends on /what/ you write there...
>>
>> At least mentioning the different notions of skew polynomial evaluation
>> (and that currently only one, and which, is implemented) shouldn't hurt.
>>
>> And you could clearly state what aspects of the
> leif wrote:
> Well, depends on /what/ you write there...
>
> At least mentioning the different notions of skew polynomial evaluation
> (and that currently only one, and which, is implemented) shouldn't hurt.
>
> And you could clearly state what aspects of the interface are probably
> subject to c
Travis Scrimshaw wrote:
> For the record, I am that reviewer.
>
> > As a huge part of Arpit Merchant's GSoC project on Gabidulin codes,
> > we've been working on Xavier Caruso's old patch implementing skew
> > polynomial rings, #13215.
> >
> > While everyone involved has consid
For the record, I am that reviewer.
> As a huge part of Arpit Merchant's GSoC project on Gabidulin codes,
> > we've been working on Xavier Caruso's old patch implementing skew
> > polynomial rings, #13215.
> >
> > While everyone involved has considered the code and math carefully, it
> > is m
Johan S. H. Rosenkilde wrote:
> Hi sage-devel,
>
> As a huge part of Arpit Merchant's GSoC project on Gabidulin codes,
> we've been working on Xavier Caruso's old patch implementing skew
> polynomial rings, #13215.
>
> While everyone involved has considered the code and math carefully, it
> is my
14 matches
Mail list logo
