|Bill Allombert on Tue, 8 Apr 2003 11:46:08 +0200|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
|Re: [PATCH CVS] broken proto|
On Mon, Apr 07, 2003 at 04:52:49PM -0700, Ilya Zakharevich wrote: > On Mon, Apr 07, 2003 at 11:47:19PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 07, 2003 at 02:16:46PM -0700, Ilya Zakharevich wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 07, 2003 at 12:17:26PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > > > > I think we should remove completly valence code from GP. They are not > > > > used anymore, not documented and wrong. > > > > > > They are used (by Math::Pari), documented, and are correct (at least > > > with my patches). Moreover, now they are very easy to check for > > > correctness. > > > > That's what I cannot understand: could not you generate them yourself > > at build time instead of requiring them to be in the PARI source ? > > a) Why generate them when they are already there? Because they are never correct. > b) *Where* to store the values? Where you want. If it is really important for you, we can keep the field, just filled with 0. > c) If you can answer (a) and (b), who is going to implement this? > (Although with Math::PariBuild, this may be not that complicated) You already implemented it. For the purpose of PARI they should be removed. For the purpose of Math::PARI, you can compute them at build-time with Math::PariBuild, or my perl script. I suggest we do the following: 1) Apply Ilya's patch. 2) Fix PARI so that it do not use valence at all. 3) When the description system is implemented, get rid of them completly. At this point anyway Math::PariBuild will need to be updated and I already offered to help Ilya at this stage. Cheers, Bill.