On 8/15/07, David Joyner wrote: > > Maybe this is more work than you want to get into but here's > an idea: > (1) try building SAGE using Clisp without readline support, > check for warnings etc, > (2) run sage -testall, check for broken tests. > (3) report problems to the lists. > Would that add useful information? >
Yes, I could/will easily do this. I have no reason to believe that any tests would fail, but of course it is good to check. The main difference would be felt by those people who use -clisp, -maxima, or -axiom in console-mode. These users would no longer have line-editing support. This is the main reason why I would hesitate to suggest this option. Being able to dynamically disable it for use with pexpect would be much nicer. After looking into the Maxima code a little more, I doubt what I said about --readline-off is true. It seems that this option only applies to Maxima built using GCL. And now checking the code in maxima.py again too, it seems that recent versions definitely don't use this option. But maxima.py does use the (setf *general-display-prefix* "<sage-display>") option to help implement a general "resynchronization" protocol which perhaps prevents this from happening so often when using Maxima from Sage. So it seems to me that even the reliability of Maxima on different hardware is likely to be improved by the use of Clisp built --without-readline. Does anyone no of any test cases now for Maxima that seem to fail due to the communication between Maxima and Sage? Regards. Bill Page. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://sage.scipy.org/sage/ and http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage/ -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
