On 1 Apr., 08:43, Simon King <simon.k...@uni-jena.de> wrote:
> ...
> It states that this may depend on possible previous computations. Is
> there really no work around? Such as, using an object that is not
> considered in any other doc test? Is the new result correct? Shouldn't
> both tests better be marked as "random"?

I notice that in this file, all examples of SFAElementary are over QQ.
Changing it into QQ['t'] for the one failing test does the job.

Cheers,
Simon

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-combinat-devel" group.
To post to this group, send email to sage-combinat-devel@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
sage-combinat-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-combinat-devel?hl=en.

Reply via email to