Thank you for your answers ! I just wrote a few lines on Cliquer :-)
Nathann
On Aug 16, 11:40 pm, Minh Nguyen wrote:
> Hi Nathann,
>
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 7:19 AM, Nathann Cohen wrote:
>
> > Hmmm There are two cliquer-related patches in this list, so I
> > guess I should do something ab
... continued...
>
> Of course it can. Here is one of your 5000 lines of mpz_add's:
>
> cpdef ModuleElement _iadd_(self, ModuleElement right):
> # self and right are guaranteed to be Integers, self safe to
> mutate
> mpz_add(self.value, self.value, (right).value)
> retu
First of all, I am confused about Python and macros. If I read this
posting from March, 2009,
Python doesn't have macros.
http://blog.pythonisito.com/2009/03/python-macros.html
So maybe this guy is misinformed?
...snip...
>
> Right, but you could write a similar macro in python. {Scratches
>
I should point out that the vast majority of Sage files do not have
mpz_add in them The below are merely the ones that do.
Bill.
On 17 Aug, 04:04, Bill Hart wrote:
> Just to put this 5000 lines in context, here are counts of the number
> of occurrences of mpz_add in all the Cython and Python fi
Just to put this 5000 lines in context, here are counts of the number
of occurrences of mpz_add in all the Cython and Python files in Sage:
/sage/modular/modsym/heilbronn.pyx:1
/sage/ext/multi_modular.pyx:2
/sage/combinat/expnums.pyx:1
/sage/modules/vector_integer_dense.pyx:2
/sage/algebras/quata
On 17 Aug, 02:28, rjf wrote:
> On Aug 16, 3:30 pm, Bill Hart wrote:
> ..snip...
>
>
>
> > > {RJF] (mpfr::with-temps (/(- (* (- (* 2 i)1) x t1) (* (- i 1) t0)) i)))
>
> > That's a very interesting example. Are you saying that Lisp
> > automatically divines which MPFR functions to assign to th
On Aug 16, 3:30 pm, Bill Hart wrote:
..snip...
>
> > {RJF] (mpfr::with-temps (/(- (* (- (* 2 i)1) x t1) (* (- i 1) t0)) i)))
>
> That's a very interesting example. Are you saying that Lisp
> automatically divines which MPFR functions to assign to those
> operators?
no, Lisp doesn't do that a
Dear David,
Sorry for mixing this up. The (imperfect) train of thought was that
the person who reviews the GLPK spkg is in a good position to also
look at the two tickets with applications.
I'm glad you and Robert sorted this out, and many thanks for
volunteering to do those reviews.
Best,
Al
On 15 Aug, 21:30, rjf wrote:
> I am pleased to learn that deficiencies in gmpy are not inherited by
> Sage, and that
> MPIR, equivalent functionally to GMP is accessible more directly.
>
> It doesn't seem that it should be a point of pride that there are 5000
> lines in Sage that include mpz_
Hi Nathann,
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 7:19 AM, Nathann Cohen wrote:
>
> Hmmm There are two cliquer-related patches in this list, so I
> guess I should do something about it... Now I am not sure I understood
> all of what you said : a "showcase" description is a description with
> examples of th
Hmmm There are two cliquer-related patches in this list, so I
guess I should do something about it... Now I am not sure I understood
all of what you said : a "showcase" description is a description with
examples of the new features brought to sage by the closed patches,
isn't it ?
If it is th
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 11:06 AM, David Joyner wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Alex Ghitza wrote:
>>
...
>>
>> David Joyner: #6685, #6679, #6680, #6572
>
> I already volunteered for
> http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/6447
I'm doing http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/6
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 12:35 PM, Robert Miller wrote:
>
> David,
>
> On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 8:06 AM, David Joyner wrote:
>>
>> Are these in addition? I'm not an expert in graph theory anyway,
>> which most of the ones you listed are about.
>
> I can take #6679, #6680 from your list if you like.
Hi Simon,
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 3:07 AM, Simon King wrote:
>
> Hi Minh,
>
> On Aug 16, 5:11 pm, Minh Nguyen wrote:
>> I have put your optional package under the section "Packages" as
>> ticket #6491. By all means, please do so. It's better if people read
>> about your work from your own descri
Hi Minh,
On Aug 16, 5:11 pm, Minh Nguyen wrote:
> I have put your optional package under the section "Packages" as
> ticket #6491. By all means, please do so. It's better if people read
> about your work from your own description than to read about it from
> me. I have no idea what the package d
Hi Alex,
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 12:45 AM, Alex Ghitza wrote:
>
> Hi sage-devel,
>
> Prompted by William's message, I have spent some quality time
> compiling a list of referee requests so we can get some of the waiting
> patches on their way. Below is a list of names with ticket numbers.
> I wi
David,
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 8:06 AM, David Joyner wrote:
>
> Are these in addition? I'm not an expert in graph theory anyway,
> which most of the ones you listed are about.
I can take #6679, #6680 from your list if you like.
--
Robert L. Miller
http://www.rlmiller.org/
--~--~-~--~-
Hi John,
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 1:16 AM, John Cremona wrote:
>
> Well chosen -- you put me down for three, of which I was already
> reviewing one! (6672).
>
> Is there a way of asking trac to list all open tickets which I have
> commented on, or have uploaded a patch to? I have a feeling that
Hi Simon,
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 2:03 AM, Simon King wrote:
>
> Hi Minh,
>
> On Aug 16, 4:15 pm, Minh Nguyen wrote:
>> The source of Sage 4.1.1 has been mirrored out. Now is the time to
>> polish up the release tour and showcase features in 4.1.1. I have
>> created a general structure of the re
On Aug 16, 5:03 pm, Simon King wrote:
...
> Would you mind if I describe my (optional) group cohomology package in
> the release tour? It was merged in 4.1.1.rc1
Oops, I missed the fact that you already listed it on the Wiki page.
Sorry for the noise.
Cheers,
Simon
--~--~-~--~~--
Hi Minh,
On Aug 16, 4:15 pm, Minh Nguyen wrote:
> The source of Sage 4.1.1 has been mirrored out. Now is the time to
> polish up the release tour and showcase features in 4.1.1. I have
> created a general structure of the release tour at
>
> http://wiki.sagemath.org/sage-4.1.1
>
> with tickets t
Hi folks,
FYI: Looks like NetworkX 1.0 is about to be released soon.
--
Regards
Minh Van Nguyen
-- Forwarded message --
From: Aric Hagberg
Date: Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 1:51 AM
Subject: [networkx-discuss] Recent posts NetworkX 1.0 release candidate
To: networkx-disc...@googlegro
Well chosen -- you put me down for three, of which I was already
reviewing one! (6672).
Is there a way of asking trac to list all open tickets which I have
commented on, or have uploaded a patch to? I have a feeling that
there are some not-yet-reviewed parches by me out there, but cannot
rememb
Hi folks,
The source of Sage 4.1.1 has been mirrored out. Now is the time to
polish up the release tour and showcase features in 4.1.1. I have
created a general structure of the release tour at
http://wiki.sagemath.org/sage-4.1.1
with tickets that I think are good for a release tour. But if I'v
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Alex Ghitza wrote:
>
> Hi sage-devel,
>
> Prompted by William's message, I have spent some quality time
> compiling a list of referee requests so we can get some of the waiting
> patches on their way. Below is a list of names with ticket numbers.
> I will send in
Hi sage-devel,
Prompted by William's message, I have spent some quality time
compiling a list of referee requests so we can get some of the waiting
patches on their way. Below is a list of names with ticket numbers.
I will send individual emails saying "pretty please" tomorrow morning.
Note tha
I tried to build Sage 4.1.1 with Sun's compiler suite (Sun Studio 12
update 1 to be precise).
The Sun compilers are more fussy than gcc, and will reject code that gcc
accepts. One such big of code is below.
void
gcry_md_hash_buffer (int algo, void *digest,
const void *buf
Minh Nguyen wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Sage 4.1.1 compilation aborted after an error trying to compile the
> spkg sage-4.1.1.spkg. Here's a relevant snippet:
>
>
> Host system
> uname -a:
> SunOS t2 5.10 Generic_141414-02 sun4v sparc SUNW,T5240 So
> I've marked
>
> http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/6177
>
> that as '[with patch; needs work]' as it breaks on Solaris. There were
> previous issues on Solaris with PolyBoRi which were resolved. With the
> updated .spkg, those issues return. Basically if the Sun C++ compiler
> (CC) can be
> Are
> polybori-0-6-3.4.patch
> polybori-0-6-3.5.patch
>
> included in that spkg file? The patches were added after the link to the
> .spkg file was posted.
These are revisions of the same patch. These are patches against the main Sage
tree and thus not included in the SPKG.
Cheers,
Martin
--
Hi folks,
Sage 4.1.1 compilation aborted after an error trying to compile the
spkg sage-4.1.1.spkg. Here's a relevant snippet:
Host system
uname -a:
SunOS t2 5.10 Generic_141414-02 sun4v sparc SUNW,T5240 Solaris
***
I tried to build Sage using Sun's compiler suite, based on Sun Studio 12
update 1. This is of course good for Solaris, but will also find other
issues. Since the Sun compiler is a lot stricter than the GNU one, it
will find bad code.
The version of sqlite in Sage (3.5.3) is the first package I
32 matches
Mail list logo
