Hello, On Sat, Aug 19, 2006 at 01:20:58PM +0100, Vladimir Kisil wrote:
"SA" == Sheplyakov Alexei <varg@theor.jinr.ru> writes: SA> Secondly, drawing is sensible only for small subset of GiNaC SA> classes ... a complex-valued function?....
Yes, complex-valued functions are drawable. Well, such a plot (complex-valued function of a complex variable) would be 4-dimensional. I agree that it is possible to draw it, but IMHO there is no point in doing such things. Thus, I think that plotting functions should not be virtual methods of GiNaC::basic.
SA> I use GiNaC 1.3.5, Asymptote 1.03, g++ 4.1.2
INSTALL recommends Asymptote 1.11
Could you please mention in the INSTALL file that earlier versions are known to *not* work?
Generally, a couple of recent discussions in this list are derived from the more general question:
Is GiNaC a tool for a broad community or it is narrowed to special needs/circumstances?
DISCALIMER: the follwing is simply my personal opinion, see cs.SC/0004015 and hep/ph-0510057 \begin{quote} First of all, GiNaC's name must be read literally. \end{quote} (GiNaC's manual) I think GiNaC is special-purpose library. One of the goals of GiNaC is efficient handling of quite a large expressions (an sum of ~10^6 terms is not really a big expression). Thus, GiNaC provides only basic functionality, since one can't probably do any funky things with such expressions anyway. I don't know if GiNaC's approach is useful for something except calculations in perturbative quantum field theory (and frankly, I don't care much). Best regards, Alexei. -- All science is either physics or stamp collecting.