FWIW, I think vinzent's approach (local assumptions automatically
injected into the context of the symbol creation) is the best way to
go.
On 1 Mai, 07:47, Ondrej Certik <ond...@certik.cz> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Haz <christian.mu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > So a few things to respond to...
> > Tom:
> >>Can you describe what went wrong with these branches? In particular,
> >>why can the following naive strategy not work:
>
> >>1. Make the new system at least as good as the old one. That is
> >>whenever I can write foo.is_bar I can write ask(foo, Q.bar) and I will
> >>get at least as good an answer. In particular Symbol('x',
> >>positive=True) should register automatically in the global assumptions
> >>that x > 0 (if I understand correctly how the new system works...).
> >>2. Replace all queries foo.is_bar by ask(foo, Q.bar).
> >>3. Remove all implementations of the is_bar properties.
> >>4. Remove all remaining remnants of the old system.
> > This is what was largely tried with a branch last summer:
> > - https://github.com/haz/sympy/tree/disconnect-assumptions-2
> > There was push-back from the community since removing the Symbol('x',
> > positive=True) syntax was largely frowned upon.
>
> I am still very much convinced, that this disconnect-assumptions-2 is
> the simplest and easiest way to get rid of the old assumptions, so
> that we can start speeding up the core, and start using some other
> system for them.
>
> I would be interested in the community vote on this idea. I vote +1. I
> am aware that Ronan voted -1 last year. What do others think?
>
> Ondrej
--
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.
