Ondrej, > Well, I agree with Aaron, that if it is small, and manageable, it > should be part of SymPy. Only when it becomes large, and there are > people around it being able to manage it and release it separately, it > makes sense to split it. At least my intuition tells me, that it is > too early to split it.
I fully agree. > However, allowing people to create packages and host it under the > sympy github organization is a great idea, that is for sure. To have a > well defined one module for one thing, e.g. let's say the quantum > stuff. E.g. not Ondrej's quantum, Brian's quantum, but SymPy's > quantum, part of the SymPy community. For now, I would keep it as part > of the sympy repository, it makes things easier, but later on, yes, we > can definitely split it. This sounds like a great plan. I will play around with pkgutils to see if we can do this without using setuptools. > Overall, I think we all agree, that SymPy should stay as the common > denominator for all these things, and play very well with other > libraries, so that people can take it and build upon it. The line > (what should and should not be part of SymPy) is obviously subtle, and > we just have to use common sense. Well put! Brian > Ondrej > -- Brian E. Granger, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Physics Cal Poly State University, San Luis Obispo bgran...@calpoly.edu elliso...@gmail.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sympy" group. To post to this group, send email to sympy@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sympy+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sympy?hl=en.
