Adding python support to GiNaC

[Pearu Peterson]

On Wed, 19 Dec 2001, Richard B. Kreckel wrote:

> I am about to check in your patch.  Just one curious question: why the
> unsigned variable in
> 
> >               unsigned end = nops();
> >               if (end)
> >                       op(0).print(c);
> >               for (unsigned i=1; i<end; ++i) {
> >                       c.s << ',';
> >                       op(i).print(c);
> >               }
> 
> in classes mul and add?  Did 
> 
> >               op(0).print(c);
> >               for (unsigned i=1; i<nops(); ++i) {
> >                       c.s << ',';
> >                       op(i).print(c);
> >               }
> 
> not work?  In this case you would have gotten an unevaluated expairseq,
> which'ld be strange...

Indeed, it works. Silly me ..

> Also, I am removing the implementation of relational::is_equal_same_type
> you sent us for 1.0.1 because having relational::compare_same_type is
> enough by virtue of basic::compare_same_type.

I've checked out 1.0.2. All pyGiNaC tests pass fine.
Thanks,
	Pearu