allow to use flint for Stirling numbers
fchapoton opened this issue · 22 comments
Branch: u/chapoton/33733
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
722c2db | fix indentation |
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
384ac6e | remove duplicate TEST |
green bot, so please review
Maybe one should not remove the maxima algorithm, which is not using the pexpect interface in fact ?
I agree that it would be better not to remove the algorithm="maxima" option without deprecating it first.
As far as I understand, the native Sage implementation of the Stirling numbers of the second kind and the Sage implementation were both written by Fredrik. Is the native Sage version better in some way? Do we need to keep it at all?
Would it make sense to change the default implementation for some of the functions?
A minor style point: why do you write
def stirling_number1(n, k, algorithm=None) -> Integer:
...
if algorithm is None:
algorithm='gap'
rather than
def stirling_number1(n, k, algorithm="gap") -> Integer:
...
?
voila, j'ai remis l'algorithme "maxima" en place
et le patchbot est tout vert
Description changed:
---
+++
@@ -1,3 +1 @@
of both kind
-
-also get rid of slow usage of maxima pexpect interfaceplease review
As far as I understand, the native Sage implementation of the Stirling numbers of the second kind and the Sage implementation were both written by Fredrik. Is the native Sage version better in some way? Do we need to keep it at all?
Would it make sense to change the default implementation for some of the functions?
I have no idea, and do not plan to investigate
may we please move forward here ?
Reviewer: Marc Mezzarobba, Travis Scrimshaw
Sorry, I lost track of this. Thank you. LGTM.
Changed branch from u/chapoton/33733 to bbd7807