-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: One last time: annoying warning Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 18:17:54 +0200 (CEST) From: Richard B. Kreckel kreckel@zino.physik.uni-mainz.de Reply-To: ginac-devel@zino.physik.uni-mainz.de To: GiNaC developers list ginac-devel@zino.physik.uni-mainz.de

Hi again,

On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Roberto Bagnara wrote: [...]

You are violating [17.4.3.1.2], for instance.

LOL! I was actually anticipating this to come up. Anything else, Sir?

[...]

a) writing header files so as to suit the needs of as many users as possible, and

Exactly. If those leading underscores pose a problem in any realistic compilation environment I will happily patch it. Until then there is nothing to worry about.

b) ask for and provide clearly specified interfaces

Good. So let me next specify `lsolve()' and it's relation to the matrix class.

Just some thoughts: that whole notion of "clearly specified interfaces" is not always entirely clear. As soon as one allows general expressions lie `x+sin(x)+cos(2*x)' one opens a pandora's box of controversial evaluations, both anonymous and named ones. It is not always easy to clearly specify the intent since that appears clearly as people work with the system and not earlier. Remember that `sqrfree()' discussion and the change in behaviour between GiNaC-1.0.0 and GiNaC-1.0.1? As a developer, I find a set of regression tests more useful than a set of formal specifications since a problem is much easier trapped there. I hope you do the same.

However: what is unclear about the notion of polynomials?

Regards -richy.