[sage-combinat-devel] Re: Crashing test in tiling.py with Sage's new debug version

2012-12-29 Thread Simon King
Hi! On 2012-12-29, Simon King wrote: > I will not have time in the next couple of hours - so, if one of you > immediately understands what is happening, then please open a new > ticket, making it a new dependency for #13864! I opened #13882, which is ready for review. Best regards, Simon -- Y

[sage-combinat-devel] Re: Inconsistent behavior of LatticePolytopes and Polyhedrons

2012-12-29 Thread Volker Braun
And LatticePolytope has various compile-time limits like the maximal number of dimension and vertices before you hit a C assertion. Whereas Polyhedron has no limits within your CPU/Memory bounds. Starting with Sage-5.6 the Polyhedron class also supports the base ring ZZ. In the long run I'm en

[sage-combinat-devel] Inconsistent behavior of LatticePolytopes and Polyhedrons

2012-12-29 Thread Johannes
Hi List, I recognized some differences between polyhedron and lattice polytopes. let p be a polyhedron, and l a lattice polytop. then: first one: p.vertices() gives a list of lists, i.e. a list of vertices l.vertices() gives a matrix, where the columns define the vertices. second: let l be given

[sage-combinat-devel] Crashing test in tiling.py with Sage's new debug version

2012-12-29 Thread Simon King
Hi! The task #13864 coordinates work on getting a debug version of Sage, i.e., so that SAGE_DEBUG=yes results in Python being built in debug version, Singular being built with malloc instead of omalloc, and so on. The good news: It works ... The bad news: ... almost! One of the remaining problem

Re: [sage-combinat-devel] Re: sage-5.5

2012-12-29 Thread Nicolas M. Thiery
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 04:58:36PM -0800, Anne Schilling wrote: > > It looks #12215 had a positive review on trac at one point (4 months ago), > > so that's probably the explanation for its location in the series file. Indeed. > Thanks for investigating this! If 12215 is rebased in the queue, on

[sage-combinat-devel] Re: Hopf Algebra(s) -> FQSym, WQSym, PQSym... PBT (Ticket #13793 and #13855)

2012-12-29 Thread Jean-Baptiste Priez
I put my patch at the top of the queue and it's ok. (It was just a hunk). Cheers, Jean-Baptiste Le samedi 29 décembre 2012 11:28:33 UTC+1, Frédéric Chapoton a écrit : > > Well, this is not exactly true, as the latex method is not modified in my > patch. I only introduce new methods (written ju

[sage-combinat-devel] Re: Hopf Algebra(s) -> FQSym, WQSym, PQSym... PBT (Ticket #13793 and #13855)

2012-12-29 Thread Frédéric Chapoton
Well, this is not exactly true, as the latex method is not modified in my patch. I only introduce new methods (written just before the latex method indeed) Is there any conflict with my patch when you apply the queue in full ? does it say that it need to be rebased ? or is there just a hunk ?