Simon Brandhorst

Tests fail.

From the user perspective I prefer the `@warn_experimental()` solution. But putting `@warn_experimental()` in each function seems annoying. Are there ways to automate it?

I would be hesitant to use experimental code to prove a theorem unless I wrote the code myself and know exactly what I am doing.

Where would you put code for a n algorithmic paper that is submitted but not yet published?

@micjoswig One of my goals is to put my code somewhere other people can use it [at least the parts that are of general interest] and where I myself can...

I am okay with code in experimental to be "correct" so that the only basic difference is an unstable api. But right now when I code, I don't really know...

How far reaching is this decision of do not return the maps, but give `canoincal_` accessors? Will it soon apply to all other constructs? e.g. to sub objects, kernels, cokernels...

I am in favor of the changes. For matrix groups of large degree (say >= 10) I would not print the matrices.

> * [ ] Add a method `lll_gram(::ZLat)` for arbitrary `ZLat` which calls the appropriate methods depending on the definiteness of the entry argument. We have this method it is...

Agreed. There is `reduce` and `reduction` `saturate` and `saturation` is there any consensus on the horizon?