Maybe I am simply missing something, but I do not understand why anything more complicated than option (a) would be considered. Prasoon just implements vector fields as they are meant in math (with static orientations) and Sachin adds a parametrization to these orientations (the parameter being time) that happens to be used in physics.
On 16 June 2013 11:06, Prasoon Shukla <prasoon92.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > Okay so I just talked with Sachin on this. As Gilbert says, we should plan > before we start work. > > Initially, my proposal had a distinction between a CoordSys class and a > RefFrame class. We are at a similar point now. Nevertheless, the two ways we > thought this could work was by: > > a) Subclassing the coordinate system class from the vector module in the > appropriate physics module. Or, > b) Having an attribute, `coord_sys`, in the class defined in the physics > module through which all the functionality of the vector module is accessed. > > Stefan has pointed out some problems with the second approach though. So, > should we go with (a) or is there a better way to do this? > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "sympy" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to sympy+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to sympy@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sympy. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sympy" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sympy+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sympy@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sympy. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
