On 2017-07-10, Jeroen Demeyer <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> I don't think that it should be so strict. Of course, the optional
> module should still be within the scope of Sage and be sufficiently
> related to things that Sage does.
That would indeed be the case.
> Keep in mind that there are advantages to having your code *not* in
> Sage, namely:
> (1) it might be usable by people who don't have Sage
Doesn't apply to my code, IMHO.
> (2) you can develop it as you wish, no need to go through the Sage Trac
I believe peer review is a good thing. So, going through Sage Trac is
>> That's not necessarily bad. If the documentation of optional stuff is built
>> by default
> It's the opposite. There is no documentation for optional packages.
> There are technical reasons for this, I have not really tried to make it
OK, it would be nice to be able to build it.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to email@example.com.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.