On Sat, Apr 02, 2011 at 12:12:09AM -0700, Simon King 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.
>
> No, it doesn't. There is a side effect even when one changes from QQ
> to QQ['t'].
Well, I guess the right thing to do would be to change the doctest to
not show the full cache of this function, but only those pieces that
should be there at this point. Do you feel comfortable doing it, or
would you rather have someone more knowledgeable of this code do it?
Cheers,
Nicolas
--
Nicolas M. Thiéry "Isil" <nthi...@users.sf.net>
http://Nicolas.Thiery.name/
--
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.
