Add sets to cwrapper

[rikardn]

No description provided.

[rikardn]

This is ready for review

[isuruf]

basic_assign_bool_true?

[isuruf]

Or basic_bool_set_true?

[rikardn]

Ok, we have integer_set_si so I changed to bool_set_true and bool_set_false

[Marlin-Na]

I wonder if we should prefix all/most functions with basic or basic_set. E.g. functions like is_subset sounds easy to collide with other libraries or user code.

[rikardn]

Thanks @Marlin-Na for reviewing. I agree. Perhaps even better would be to have a symengine prefix then class and then function. Something like symengine_set_is_subset or se_set_is_subset, but this would go against the current naming scheme. Otherwise I think set_is_subset is the closest to the current naming scheme. What do you think?

[rikardn]

I changed to set_is_subset etc. Let me know if you think something else would be better.

[Marlin-Na]

@rikardn Thanks for making those changes. I still think having a basic_ prefix makes sense for all functions that return basic struct, which includes set. However, given we already have exceptions with integer, real, complex etc, I think the set_ prefix should be acceptable.

[rikardn]

Can this be merged?

[isuruf]

I agree with @Marlin-Na that set_* is too common. Let's add basic_ prefix. Otherwise looks good to me.

[rikardn]

Ok. Is this better?

[rikardn]

Thanks @isuruf and @Marlin-Na for reviewing