[sage-devel] Re: units

On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 11:30 PM, Jason Grout wrote: > > William Stein wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I just wanted to let people know that David Ackerman -- a UW student who >> took my course on Sage last quarter -- is working (funded by NSF) on >> creating a "units package" for Sage right _now_.  If anybod

[sage-devel] Re: units

William Stein wrote: > Hi, > > I just wanted to let people know that David Ackerman -- a UW student who > took my course on Sage last quarter -- is working (funded by NSF) on > creating a "units package" for Sage right _now_. If anybody has any > pseudo-sage code that involves units that they

[sage-devel] Re: GCC requirements for OS X

On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 9:17 PM, David Kirkby wrote: > > 2009/8/12 William Stein : >> >> On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 7:38 PM, Robert >> Bradshaw wrote: >>> >>> On Aug 11, 2009, at 1:42 PM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote: >>> I gather that what gcc works on OS X depends on many things. Can anyone >>>

[sage-devel] Re: Test failures with sage-4.1.1.rc0 with Maxima 5.19.0

Robert Dodier wrote: > Dr. David Kirkby wrote: > >> sage: A.eigenvectors() >> Expected: >> [[[2,11],[1,2]],[0,0,1],[0,1,1/3]] >> Got: >> [[[2,11],[1,2]],[[[0,0,1]],[[0,1,1/3 > > eigenvectors now tries to present more detail in its return value. > ? eigenvectors describes the retu

[sage-devel] Re: GCC requirements for OS X

2009/8/12 William Stein : > > On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 7:38 PM, Robert > Bradshaw wrote: >> >> On Aug 11, 2009, at 1:42 PM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote: >> >>> I gather that what gcc works on OS X depends on many things. Can >>> anyone >>> be precise about exactly what works and what does not? I can do

[sage-devel] Re: GCC requirements for OS X

On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 7:38 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote: > > On Aug 11, 2009, at 1:42 PM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote: > >> I gather that what gcc works on OS X depends on many things. Can >> anyone >> be precise about exactly what works and what does not? I can do some >> semi-sensible testing in a con

[sage-devel] Re: sage-4.1 on FreeBSD-7.2/i386

On Aug 11, 2009, at 5:02 PM, Peter Jeremy wrote: > On 2009-Aug-11 07:05:42 +1000, Peter Jeremy > wrote: >> I thought I saw a csin() during the build so I'll investigate and >> add code as necessary. > > The relevant error in "devel/sage/sage/ext/fast_callable.pyx" is: > ImportError: /usr/h

[sage-devel] Re: elliptic_e(0.5, 0.1) differs from Mathematica 7 by about 0.04%.

On Aug 11, 2009, at 4:08 PM, nrbruin wrote: > > On Aug 11, 2:50 pm, William Stein wrote: > > [snip] >>1. A major government agency -- we can't use Sage unless you >> provide a version that contains no binary components and that builds >> from source using the latest released version of GCC.

[sage-devel] Re: GCC requirements for OS X

On Aug 11, 2009, at 1:42 PM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote: > I gather that what gcc works on OS X depends on many things. Can > anyone > be precise about exactly what works and what does not? I can do some > semi-sensible testing in a configure script if I knew what was wanted, > but I don't. > > I h

[sage-devel] Re: Review for enhancement adding displayhook to Sage

On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 9:43 PM, William Cauchois wrote: > > I can't believe I forgot to run -testall! The displayhook was using > the wrong output stream in doctesting mode. I've managed to fix this > issue  in my branch. However, I realize now that since the displayhook > changes the output form

[sage-devel] Re: Review for enhancement adding displayhook to Sage

On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 6:43 PM, William Cauchois wrote: > > I can't believe I forgot to run -testall! The displayhook was using > the wrong output stream in doctesting mode. I've managed to fix this > issue  in my branch. However, I realize now that since the displayhook > changes the output form

[sage-devel] issues in tutorial?

I have had some issues in the tutorial but I am a newbie so I wanted to check here before thinking these were errors in Sage rather than errors in me. 1) at http://www.sagemath.org/doc/tutorial/tour_algebra.html#euler-s-method-for-systems-of-differential-equations it seems to met that z(1) \apr

[sage-devel] Re: Review for enhancement adding displayhook to Sage

I can't believe I forgot to run -testall! The displayhook was using the wrong output stream in doctesting mode. I've managed to fix this issue in my branch. However, I realize now that since the displayhook changes the output format for some objects, any doctests which rely upon the old output fo

[sage-devel] Re: Review for enhancement adding displayhook to Sage

There are a huge number of errors in sage -testall when applied to 4.1.1.rc2 on an intel macbook 10.4.11. On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 7:46 PM, William Cauchois wrote: > > I recently attached a patch to #1918 adding a displayhook to Sage that > should make some output from the Sage interpreter much m

[sage-devel] Twisted and asynchronous programming...

Related to discussions on the notebook and extending the core Sage infrastructure, I stumbled across a thread on the twisted mailing list http://twistedmatrix.com/pipermail/twisted-python/2009-July/020069.html which discusses a new introduction to asynchronous programming, why its good / necessar

[sage-devel] Re: sage-4.1 on FreeBSD-7.2/i386

On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 5:02 PM, Peter Jeremy wrote: > On 2009-Aug-11 07:05:42 +1000, Peter Jeremy > wrote: >>I thought I saw a csin() during the build so I'll investigate and >>add code as necessary. > > The relevant error in "devel/sage/sage/ext/fast_callable.pyx" is: >    ImportError: > /usr

[sage-devel] Re: sage-4.1 on FreeBSD-7.2/i386

On 2009-Aug-11 07:05:42 +1000, Peter Jeremy wrote: >I thought I saw a csin() during the build so I'll investigate and >add code as necessary. The relevant error in "devel/sage/sage/ext/fast_callable.pyx" is: ImportError: /usr/home/peter/sage-4.1.1.rc2/local/lib/python/site-packages/sage/ext

[sage-devel] Re: units

On Aug 11, 4:29 pm, William Stein wrote: > I just wanted to let people know that David Ackerman -- a UW student who > took my course on Sage last quarter -- is working (funded by NSF) on > creating a "units package" for Sage right _now_.  If anybody has any > pseudo-sage code that involves units

[sage-devel] Review for enhancement adding displayhook to Sage

I recently attached a patch to #1918 adding a displayhook to Sage that should make some output from the Sage interpreter much more readable. Can anyone take a look at it at ? Thanks, Bill Cauchois --~--~-~--~~~---~--~---

[sage-devel] Re: elliptic_e(0.5, 0.1) differs from Mathematica 7 by about 0.04%.

On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 4:08 PM, nrbruin wrote: > > On Aug 11, 2:50 pm, William Stein wrote: > > [snip] >>    1. A major government agency -- we can't use Sage unless you >> provide a version that contains no binary components and that builds >> from source using the latest released version of GC

[sage-devel] Re: elliptic_e(0.5, 0.1) differs from Mathematica 7 by about 0.04%.

On Aug 11, 2:50 pm, William Stein wrote: [snip] >    1. A major government agency -- we can't use Sage unless you > provide a version that contains no binary components and that builds > from source using the latest released version of GCC. [snip] It puzzled me a bit how SBCL could be ported an

[sage-devel] units

Hi, I just wanted to let people know that David Ackerman -- a UW student who took my course on Sage last quarter -- is working (funded by NSF) on creating a "units package" for Sage right _now_. If anybody has any pseudo-sage code that involves units that they wished work, please post it to this

[sage-devel] Re: Sage 4.1.1.rc2 released

On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 4:02 PM, Minh Nguyen wrote: > Hi folks, > > Sage 4.1.1.rc2 resolves issues caused by non-ASCII characters in a > patch at ticket #5793. So the only ticket that has been merged in this > release is > > #6674: Minh Van Nguyen: only use ASCII characters in patches [Reviewed > b

[sage-devel] Re: elliptic_e(0.5, 0.1) differs from Mathematica 7 by about 0.04%.

On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 9:19 AM, rjf wrote > Continuing off topic, at least given the subject line... > Since so many pieces of code are currently part of Sage,  it seems > prudent to  tell those developers what the constraints are, or else > they may suddenly find themselves excluded from Sage. >

[sage-devel] GCC requirements for OS X

I gather that what gcc works on OS X depends on many things. Can anyone be precise about exactly what works and what does not? I can do some semi-sensible testing in a configure script if I knew what was wanted, but I don't. I have at this point put a test in for gcc version minimum_gcc_versi

[sage-devel] Re: Test failures with sage-4.1.1.rc0 with Maxima 5.19.0

On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 10:23 PM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote: >> maxima seemed to install fine on an intel macbook running 10.4.11.[...] >> However, the ecl install failed. There were a lot of errors, but here are >> some near the tail: > > Perhaps Juanjo has some idea, as he is the maintainer. I beli

[sage-devel] Re: Test failures with sage-4.1.1.rc0 with Maxima 5.19.0

David Joyner wrote: > On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 4:55 AM, Dr. David > Kirkby wrote: > > ... > >> It would be good if some people could try >> >> http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/kirkby/Solaris-fixes/ecl-9.8.1/ecl-9.8.1.spkg >> and >> http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/kirkby/Solaris-fixes/max

[sage-devel] Re: easy reviews for Sage 4.1.1.final

On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 5:49 AM, William Stein wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 12:47 PM, Marshall Hampton > wrote: >> >> I noticed you changed "pyrex" to "Pyrex", which is fine, but should >> this just be changed to "Cython" everywhere? Do we ever use plain >> Pyrex as opposed to Cython? >

[sage-devel] Re: easy reviews for Sage 4.1.1.final

On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 5:49 AM, William Stein wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 12:47 PM, Marshall Hampton > wrote: >> >> I noticed you changed "pyrex" to "Pyrex", which is fine, but should >> this just be changed to "Cython" everywhere? Do we ever use plain >> Pyrex as opposed to Cython? >

[sage-devel] Re: easy reviews for Sage 4.1.1.final

On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 12:47 PM, Marshall Hampton wrote: > > I noticed you changed "pyrex" to "Pyrex", which is fine, but should > this just be changed to "Cython" everywhere? Do we ever use plain > Pyrex as opposed to Cython? Yes, it should be changed to "Cython" everywhere. But I think this

[sage-devel] Re: easy reviews for Sage 4.1.1.final

I noticed you changed "pyrex" to "Pyrex", which is fine, but should this just be changed to "Cython" everywhere? Do we ever use plain Pyrex as opposed to Cython? -Marshall On Aug 11, 1:06 pm, Minh Nguyen wrote: > Hi folks, > > sage: So, mvngu. What have you been doing these last few days? > mv

[sage-devel] Re: elliptic_e(0.5, 0.1) differs from Mathematica 7 by about 0.04%.

On Aug 11, 6:19 pm, rjf wrote: > Or worse, they may be included in Sage and jeopardize uh, the security > of the USA. I'm sure the security of USA does not depend on Sage -- but if it does, it would be the #1 selling argument I would put on the homepage :) My personal guess is that they want to

[sage-devel] Re: easy reviews for Sage 4.1.1.final

I'll try to do a few too. Btw, I have an easy to review patch at:http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/6543 that brings tachyon coverage to 100%. If anyone can review that, I would appreciate it. -Marshall On Aug 11, 1:12 pm, William Stein wrote: > On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Minh N

[sage-devel] Re: Test failures with sage-4.1.1.rc0 with Maxima 5.19.0

On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 4:55 AM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote: ... > > It would be good if some people could try > > http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/kirkby/Solaris-fixes/ecl-9.8.1/ecl-9.8.1.spkg > and > http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/kirkby/Solaris-fixes/maxima-5.19.0/maxima-5.19.0.spkg > >

[sage-devel] Re: easy reviews for Sage 4.1.1.final

On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Minh Nguyen wrote: > > Hi folks, > > sage: So, mvngu. What have you been doing these last few days? > mvngu: Fixing some trivial bugs in Sage. > sage: Were they technical bugs? > mvngu: Not really. Just trivial typos and minor spelling mistakes. > sage: You spent

[sage-devel] easy reviews for Sage 4.1.1.final

Hi folks, sage: So, mvngu. What have you been doing these last few days? mvngu: Fixing some trivial bugs in Sage. sage: Were they technical bugs? mvngu: Not really. Just trivial typos and minor spelling mistakes. sage: You spent three days on that? mvngu: Yeah, pretty much. sage: Why? Didn't you

[sage-devel] pickle jar failures

Hi there, it seems my Singular update patches produce pickle jar failures. I am not aware of any documentation guiding me how to debug this. I guess I could just dive in (and learn the hard way) but wonder if anybody can share a few tips? Cheers, Martin -- name: Martin Albrecht _pgp: http://

[sage-devel] Re: Test failures with sage-4.1.1.rc0 with Maxima 5.19.0

Simon King wrote: > Hi! > > On Aug 11, 10:04 am, Tim Lahey wrote: >> On Aug 11, 2009, at 4:55 AM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote: >>> 1) Some things 'fail' a test as they are now evaluated in Maxima. e.g. >>> sage: integral( exp(-x^2)*ln(x), x, 0, oo) >>> Expected: >>> integrate(e^(-x^2)*log(x),

[sage-devel] Re: elliptic_e(0.5, 0.1) differs from Mathematica 7 by about 0.04%.

On Aug 10, 10:21 pm, William Stein wrote: > On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 10:09 PM, rjf wrote: > > > On Aug 10, 2:00 pm, William Stein wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 12:51 PM, rjf wrote: > > > > > (RJF)  Could you perhaps quote for us the DoD requirements?  (and who > > in DoD > > > > requir

[sage-devel] Re: Test failures with sage-4.1.1.rc0 with Maxima 5.19.0

Hi! On Aug 11, 10:04 am, Tim Lahey wrote: > On Aug 11, 2009, at 4:55 AM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote: > > 1) Some things 'fail' a test as they are now evaluated in Maxima. e.g. > > >     sage: integral( exp(-x^2)*ln(x), x, 0, oo) > > Expected: > >     integrate(e^(-x^2)*log(x), x, 0, +Infinity) > > G

[sage-devel] Re: Test failures with sage-4.1.1.rc0 with Maxima 5.19.0

Dr. David Kirkby wrote: > sage: A.eigenvectors() > Expected: > [[[2,11],[1,2]],[0,0,1],[0,1,1/3]] > Got: > [[[2,11],[1,2]],[[[0,0,1]],[[0,1,1/3 eigenvectors now tries to present more detail in its return value. ? eigenvectors describes the return value. See the Maxima mailing lis

[sage-devel] Re: An improved spkg-install (for general usage)

Peter Jeremy wrote: > On 2009-Aug-02 12:24:26 -0700, William Stein wrote: >>> 1) It uses 'set -e' to exit the spkg-install if any error occurs. >> +1 we should do that for all spkg-install's > > Agreed (and there are other shell-scripts that probably should also > have 'set -e'). But this is a

[sage-devel] Re: An improved spkg-install (for general usage)

Peter Jeremy wrote: > On 2009-Aug-02 12:24:26 -0700, William Stein wrote: >>> 1) It uses 'set -e' to exit the spkg-install if any error occurs. >> +1 we should do that for all spkg-install's > > Agreed (and there are other shell-scripts that probably should also > have 'set -e'). But this is a

[sage-devel] Re: An improved spkg-install (for general usage)

On 2009-Aug-02 12:24:26 -0700, William Stein wrote: >> 1) It uses 'set -e' to exit the spkg-install if any error occurs. > >+1 we should do that for all spkg-install's Agreed (and there are other shell-scripts that probably should also have 'set -e'). But this is a very intrusive change since it

[sage-devel] Re: Test failures with sage-4.1.1.rc0 with Maxima 5.19.0

On Aug 11, 2009, at 6:03 AM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote: > > Tim Lahey wrote: >> >> On Aug 11, 2009, at 4:55 AM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote: >> >>> 1) Some things 'fail' a test as they are now evaluated in Maxima. >>> e.g. >>> >>>sage: integral( exp(-x^2)*ln(x), x, 0, oo) >>> Expected: >>>inte

[sage-devel] Re: Test failures with sage-4.1.1.rc0 with Maxima 5.19.0

Tim Lahey wrote: > > On Aug 11, 2009, at 4:55 AM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote: > >> 1) Some things 'fail' a test as they are now evaluated in Maxima. e.g. >> >> sage: integral( exp(-x^2)*ln(x), x, 0, oo) >> Expected: >> integrate(e^(-x^2)*log(x), x, 0, +Infinity) >> Got: >> -1/4*(euler_ga

[sage-devel] Re: Test failures with sage-4.1.1.rc0 with Maxima 5.19.0

On Aug 11, 2009, at 4:55 AM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote: > > 1) Some things 'fail' a test as they are now evaluated in Maxima. e.g. > > sage: integral( exp(-x^2)*ln(x), x, 0, oo) > Expected: > integrate(e^(-x^2)*log(x), x, 0, +Infinity) > Got: > -1/4*(euler_gamma + 2*log(2))*sqrt(pi) > >

[sage-devel] Re: Update of ECL's sysfun.lsp resolves both elliptic integral issues

Hi David, On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 5:57 PM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote: > > Juanjo, the main ECL developer has found the bugs in sysfun.lsp causing > the problems I noticed earlier on a SPARC box. After copying sysfun.lsp > from CVS, bugs affecting both > > * ellipic_e http://sagetrac.org/sage_trac/ti

[sage-devel] Update of ECL's sysfun.lsp resolves both elliptic integral issues

Juanjo, the main ECL developer has found the bugs in sysfun.lsp causing the problems I noticed earlier on a SPARC box. After copying sysfun.lsp from CVS, bugs affecting both * ellipic_e http://sagetrac.org/sage_trac/ticket/6716 * elliptic_eu http://sagetrac.org/sage_trac/ticket/6719 have been