On Mar 3, 4:08 pm, Robert Kern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mensanator wrote: > > On Mar 3, 2:49 pm, Carl Banks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> It's just a bug--probably sympy is messing with the internals of the > >> random number generator. It would be a simple fix. Instead of > >> b****ing about it, file a bug report. > > > I did. > > >> Or better yet, submit a patch. > > > I would if I knew what the problem was. > > Did you even try to figure it out? It took me all of 5 minutes to find the > mistake.
Could I trouble you to share? Then I could continue my testing. > > > I posted it here because someone recommended it. > > I'm simply un-recommending it. > > It was a mistake, an easily remedied mistake, But I didn't know that (and still don't). > not a big unchangeable design decision. I didn't know that either. For all I know, I might have to wait for the next version, and who knows when that will be? > If you want to recommend against sympy as a package, there is a larger > burden of proof that you have yet to meet. What kind of burden of proof must one have to recommend it in the first place? > > -- > Robert Kern > > "I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma > that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it > had > an underlying truth." > -- Umberto Eco -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
