On 1 December 2010 22:36, William Stein <wst...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 2:25 PM, David Kirkby <david.kir...@onetel.net> wrote: >>> I do think it would be good to start using nosetest >>> (http://somethingaboutorange.com/mrl/projects/nose/0.11.2/) to >>> automatically run all functions that start with "test_" in all files, >> >> I suggested 'nose' was added a long time ago >> >> http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel/browse_thread/thread/928632557a8a041c/f8bc25a249ea4483?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=nose#f8bc25a249ea4483 >> >> the only person to reply (Robert Bradshaw) disagreed. > > Well now that I know nose better, I agree with you. It's a really > awesome testing framework. I use it all the time for my own work now.
It would seem sensible to make it standard in that case. Making it optional seems a bit less useful to me. >> Yes, but using examples like >> >> sage: taylor(gamma(1/3+x),x,0,3) >> >> makes it almost impossible for a referee to check it, as the output is huge. > > I totally agree, and I think that's a very valid criticism for you to > make as a referee. The code I was refereeing did *not* add sage: taylor(gamma(1/3+x),x,0,3) That was there before What I queried was the doctest which converted the huge symbolic result to a much simpler numerical result, which was added in the ticket in question. (It was added, as the format of Maxima had changed, so a test was added to see that that the numerical values were the same, even if the symbolic ones were not). sage: map(lambda f:f[0].n(), _.coeffs()) # numerical coefficients to make comparison easier; Maple 12 gives same answer [2.6789385347..., -8.3905259853..., 26.662447494..., -80.683148377...] After I asked, the author verified it in Maple 12, as the doctest notes. So that probably means Maxima has it right > But let's not make a new policy out of this. > > >> In any case, you stated only a week or so ago that Magma 2.13 is now >> installed on sage.math >> >> http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel/msg/8e473e24b0e48772?hl=en > > That is a post from 2006?!? Em, I thought I see the post recently and Googled for it. >> It's a shame the license of Wolfram Alpha does not allow for testing >> software like Sage. (This was debated some time ago on sage-devel). >> Otherwise that would give a nice easy way to verify *some* results. >> >> "is 100001 prime" >> >> http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=is+100001+prime > > I'm not sure what you're talking about exactly at this point. > Referees can use wolfram alpha if they want to independently check > stuff... Yes, verifying results is OK. But storing comments in the source code of Sage containing a large number of comparisons with Wolfram Alpha may not be. See http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel/msg/1f8af294fbf40ccc?hl=en where Alex Ghitza pointed out this might breach the terms of use. http://www.wolframalpha.com/termsofuse.html > Do you mean adding doctests that call wolframalpha? That > would be weird. No, I was not thinking of that. > -- William Dave -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
