[sage-devel] Re: Create numpy-functions from sage symbolic functions

2012-01-27 Thread mhampton
Well, I think that looks very useful. I often get frustrated using numpy in Sage, this looks like it would make quite a few things easier. So you get a +1 from me at least. -Marshall Hampton On Jan 27, 12:27 pm, Maximilian Trescher wrote: > Hi @all, > > I'm very new to the developers list. > A

Re: [sage-devel] [ARM] sage-4.8 ptestlong failures with graphs

2012-01-27 Thread Volker Braun
I didn't doubt that what you do works, but even "unsigned char" isn't the same as a unsigned 8-bit integer on every platform. Plus whoever will contribute in the future is bound to trip over the same issue again, omitting "unsigned" because its not necessary on i386. While "unsigned char" is cl

Re: [sage-devel] [ARM] sage-4.8 ptestlong failures with graphs

2012-01-27 Thread Julien Puydt
Le 27/01/2012 19:14, Volker Braun a écrit : Instead of sprinkling "unsigned" around until it works, Well, that's not exactly what happened. Once it was recognized that the problem was that the code was using "char" thinking it meant "signed char" and that was wrong (surprise!), then I checke

[sage-devel] Create numpy-functions from sage symbolic functions

2012-01-27 Thread Maximilian Trescher
Hi @all, I'm very new to the developers list. About my background: I'm studying physics (in Berlin) and I'm using sage regularly for some physical calculations. Three days ago I wondered if there is any possibility to create a "numpy-enabled" function from a sage's symbolic expression. But i coul

Re: [sage-devel] [ARM] sage-4.8 ptestlong failures with graphs

2012-01-27 Thread Volker Braun
Instead of sprinkling "unsigned" around until it works, we should IMHO use C99 integer types if the code assumes signedness and/or a particular bit width for "char". Just include inttypes.h (C) or cinttypes (C++), then int8_t is a signed 8-bit integer and uint8_t is an unsigned 8-bit integer. -

Re: [sage-devel] Unifying Command line options

2012-01-27 Thread John H Palmieri
On Friday, January 27, 2012 2:19:59 AM UTC-8, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > > On 2012-01-27 11:17, David Roe wrote: > > Why? So that things like sage -i can work without python? > Exactly. > And also for speed issues, as William brought up a year or two ago when we discussed this sort of thing. If

[sage-devel] Re: Literal matrix syntax

2012-01-27 Thread Sébastien Labbé
> Currently one must write > > sage: matrix([[1, 2], [3, 4]]) > [1 2] > [3 4] > sage: matrix([[1, 2], [3, 4]]) * matrix([[5, 6], [7, 8]]) > [19 22] > [43 50] Well, one can avoid writing to much square brackets by doing : sage: matrix(2, [1,2,3,4]) [1 2] [3 4] sage: matrix(2, [1, 2, 3, 4]]) * matr

Re: [sage-devel] [ARM] sage-4.8 ptestlong failures with graphs

2012-01-27 Thread Nathann Cohen
> Well, no : this is an independent change and hence needs an independent > patch. Oh. Ok, well, it was juste one line and changed nothing to the code's behaviour. > between 0 and the cardinal of the graph > 1. add a "cdef unsigned char next_set" as an aside but related fix > > in a new ticket wi

Re: [sage-devel] [ARM] sage-4.8 ptestlong failures with graphs

2012-01-27 Thread Julien Puydt
Le 27/01/2012 18:08, Nathann Cohen a écrit : I'm almost scared right now O_O You'll be happy to learn (eh, I just learnt it this very afternoon) that the C standards says that char can be either "unsigned char" or "signed char"... so if you want to be safe, just use the most precise form. Ok

Re: [sage-devel] [ARM] sage-4.8 ptestlong failures with graphs

2012-01-27 Thread Nathann Cohen
>> I'm almost scared right now O_O > > You'll be happy to learn (eh, I just learnt it this very afternoon) that the > C standards says that char can be either "unsigned char" or "signed char"... > so if you want to be safe, just use the most precise form. Ok now I'm scared O_O;;; > Here is the ti

Re: [sage-devel] [ARM] sage-4.8 ptestlong failures with graphs

2012-01-27 Thread Julien Puydt
Le 27/01/2012 17:56, Dima Pasechnik a écrit : Perhaps some other doctest failures on ARM are also related to unsigned char business? E.g. the pickling problem might be also due to this messing with bits I'll get to this pickling problem sooner or later ; I've known it to be there ever sinc

Re: [sage-devel] [ARM] sage-4.8 ptestlong failures with graphs

2012-01-27 Thread Julien Puydt
Le 27/01/2012 18:00, Nathann Cohen a écrit : Wait... It means that on your platform the default "char" are unsigned ? O_o I'm almost scared right now O_O You'll be happy to learn (eh, I just learnt it this very afternoon) that the C standards says that char can be either "unsigned char" or "s

Re: [sage-devel] [ARM] sage-4.8 ptestlong failures with graphs

2012-01-27 Thread Nathann Cohen
Wait... It means that on your platform the default "char" are unsigned ? O_o I'm almost scared right now O_O Nathann -- 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,

Re: [sage-devel] [ARM] sage-4.8 ptestlong failures with graphs

2012-01-27 Thread Dima Pasechnik
Very interesting! Perhaps some other doctest failures on ARM are also related to unsigned char business? E.g. the pickling problem might be also due to this messing with bits -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an emai

Re: [sage-devel] [ARM] sage-4.8 ptestlong failures with graphs

2012-01-27 Thread Julien Puydt
Le 27/01/2012 17:14, Willem Jan Palenstijn a écrit : On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 05:07:56PM +0100, Julien Puydt wrote: Le 27/01/2012 17:02, Julien Puydt a écrit : Le 27/01/2012 16:52, Willem Jan Palenstijn a écrit : Is char signed or unsigned on your platform? Good question ; how do I find out?

Re: [sage-devel] [ARM] sage-4.8 ptestlong failures with graphs

2012-01-27 Thread Willem Jan Palenstijn
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 05:07:56PM +0100, Julien Puydt wrote: > Le 27/01/2012 17:02, Julien Puydt a écrit : > >Le 27/01/2012 16:52, Willem Jan Palenstijn a écrit : > >>Is char signed or unsigned on your platform? > > > >Good question ; how do I find out? > > If I put the following in test.c : > >

Re: [sage-devel] [ARM] sage-4.8 ptestlong failures with graphs

2012-01-27 Thread Julien Puydt
Le 27/01/2012 17:02, Julien Puydt a écrit : Le 27/01/2012 16:52, Willem Jan Palenstijn a écrit : Is char signed or unsigned on your platform? Good question ; how do I find out? If I put the following in test.c : #include #include int main() { printf ("%d\n", CHAR_MIN); return 0; }

Re: [sage-devel] [ARM] sage-4.8 ptestlong failures with graphs

2012-01-27 Thread Julien Puydt
Le 27/01/2012 16:52, Willem Jan Palenstijn a écrit : On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 02:05:25PM +0100, Julien Puydt wrote: Le 26/01/2012 10:53, Dima Pasechnik a écrit : Is the popcount() there even big-endian/little-endian safe? It's not obvious. As well, it will blow on architectures that have a diffe

Re: [sage-devel] [ARM] sage-4.8 ptestlong failures with graphs

2012-01-27 Thread Julien Puydt
Le 27/01/2012 16:25, Nathann Cohen a écrit : Hell !! Anyway, I finally have sage-4.8 again on that box, and the result of using the builtin popcount is that it still doesn't work. Where do we go from that point on? Hmmm O_o Well, I read the code again and the only weird thing I was

Re: [sage-devel] [ARM] sage-4.8 ptestlong failures with graphs

2012-01-27 Thread Willem Jan Palenstijn
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 02:05:25PM +0100, Julien Puydt wrote: > Le 26/01/2012 10:53, Dima Pasechnik a écrit : > >Is the popcount() there even big-endian/little-endian safe? > >It's not obvious. As well, it will blow on architectures that have > >a different from x86 idea about the length of int...

Re: [sage-devel] [ARM] sage-4.8 ptestlong failures with graphs

2012-01-27 Thread Nathann Cohen
Hell !! > Anyway, I finally have sage-4.8 again on that box, and the result of using > the builtin popcount is that it still doesn't work. > > Where do we go from that point on? Hmmm O_o Well, I read the code again and the only weird thing I was able to find was that : the function find_

[sage-devel] Re: DYLD on Mac... again

2012-01-27 Thread kcrisman
On Jan 27, 12:31 am, "Justin C. Walker" wrote: > On Jan 26, 2012, at 20:00 , kcrisman wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 26, 10:55 pm, kcrisman wrote: > >> My apologies if I have missed a reference to this elsewhere; it's late > >> and I didn't search as thoroughly as I might have, though

Re: [sage-devel] [ARM] sage-4.8 ptestlong failures with graphs

2012-01-27 Thread Julien Puydt
Le 26/01/2012 10:53, Dima Pasechnik a écrit : Is the popcount() there even big-endian/little-endian safe? It's not obvious. As well, it will blow on architectures that have a different from x86 idea about the length of int... So one quick test would be to use __builtin_popcount(i) and see if it m

Re: [sage-devel] Unifying Command line options

2012-01-27 Thread Jeroen Demeyer
On 2012-01-27 11:23, Keshav Kini wrote: > We could bake into $SAGE_ROOT/sage (a shell script) the functionality to > launch anything someone with an unbuilt copy of Sage would need (such as > release management utilities or whatever you have in mind), which should > be a pretty small subset of Sage

Re: [sage-devel] Unifying Command line options

2012-01-27 Thread Ivan Andrus
On Jan 27, 2012, at 11:32 AM, Keshav Kini wrote: > On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 18:26, David Roe wrote: >> We're working on rewriting the doctest framework only. So we're still >> just sticking to hyphens, but are making them UNIX-compliant: --gdb >> instead of -gdb for example. My first impression o

Re: [sage-devel] Unifying Command line options

2012-01-27 Thread R. Andrew Ohana
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 02:32, Keshav Kini wrote: > On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 18:26, David Roe wrote: >> We're working on rewriting the doctest framework only.  So we're still >> just sticking to hyphens, but are making them UNIX-compliant: --gdb >> instead of -gdb for example.  My first impression

Re: [sage-devel] Unifying Command line options

2012-01-27 Thread R. Andrew Ohana
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 02:26, David Roe wrote: > We're working on rewriting the doctest framework only.  So we're still > just sticking to hyphens, but are making them UNIX-compliant: --gdb > instead of -gdb for example.  My first impression of your proposal is > that I like it, though there are

[sage-devel] Re: Please someone upgrade sagenb so it has R graphics support

2012-01-27 Thread Keshav Kini
William did this, apparently. https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sage-devel/2aANS7hEdMQ/E7WiRKN5Q4EJ -Keshav Join us in #sagemath on irc.freenode.net ! -- 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

Re: [sage-devel] Unifying Command line options

2012-01-27 Thread Keshav Kini
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 18:26, David Roe wrote: > We're working on rewriting the doctest framework only.  So we're still > just sticking to hyphens, but are making them UNIX-compliant: --gdb > instead of -gdb for example.  My first impression of your proposal is > that I like it, though there are

Re: [sage-devel] Unifying Command line options

2012-01-27 Thread Keshav Kini
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 18:28, William Stein wrote: >> (Incidentally, why does $SAGE_LOCAL point to $SAGE_ROOT/local/bin and not >> $SAGE_ROOT/local as the name would suggest?) >> > > It does point to $SAGE_ROOT/local. Oops, why did I think it didn't? Sorry for the noise. (I'll keep that in mind

Re: [sage-devel] Unifying Command line options

2012-01-27 Thread William Stein
On Friday, January 27, 2012, Keshav Kini wrote: > We could bake into $SAGE_ROOT/sage (a shell script) the functionality to launch anything someone with an unbuilt copy of Sage would need (such as release management utilities or whatever you have in mind), which should be a pretty small subset of S

Re: [sage-devel] Unifying Command line options

2012-01-27 Thread Keshav Kini
If we keep $SAGE_ROOT/sage as a shell script that calls the python script $SAGE_ROOT/local/bin/sage-sage, we could work around the optional subparsers issue in $SAGE_ROOT/sage itself, i.e. insert an argument "--" if $1 is not in the list of sage-sage subparsers hardcoded into $SAGE_ROOT/sage .

Re: [sage-devel] Unifying Command line options

2012-01-27 Thread David Roe
We're working on rewriting the doctest framework only. So we're still just sticking to hyphens, but are making them UNIX-compliant: --gdb instead of -gdb for example. My first impression of your proposal is that I like it, though there are some ambiguities in the syntax: in mercurial the subcomma

Re: [sage-devel] Unifying Command line options

2012-01-27 Thread Keshav Kini
We could bake into $SAGE_ROOT/sage (a shell script) the functionality to launch anything someone with an unbuilt copy of Sage would need (such as release management utilities or whatever you have in mind), which should be a pretty small subset of Sage's full functionality (right?). And then $SA

Re: [sage-devel] Unifying Command line options

2012-01-27 Thread R. Andrew Ohana
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 02:07, David Roe wrote: > Come over to Padelford: Robert and I are working on something like this.  :-) Is it at all similar to what I proposed? If not, please share :) > David > > On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 02:04, R. Andrew Ohana wrote: >> So I've been looking into restart

Re: [sage-devel] Unifying Command line options

2012-01-27 Thread R. Andrew Ohana
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 02:17, David Roe wrote: > Why?  So that things like sage -i can work without python? > David Which is a valid, given that we can do that now before building sage. > > On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 02:15, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: >> On 2012-01-27 11:04, R. Andrew Ohana wrote: >>> S

Re: [sage-devel] Unifying Command line options

2012-01-27 Thread Jeroen Demeyer
On 2012-01-27 11:17, David Roe wrote: > Why? So that things like sage -i can work without python? Exactly. -- 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

Re: [sage-devel] Unifying Command line options

2012-01-27 Thread David Roe
Why? So that things like sage -i can work without python? David On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 02:15, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > On 2012-01-27 11:04, R. Andrew Ohana wrote: >> So I've been looking into restarting ticket #21 now that we have >> argparse in python 2.7. > -1 to making Python a requirement to

Re: [sage-devel] Unifying Command line options

2012-01-27 Thread Jeroen Demeyer
On 2012-01-27 11:04, R. Andrew Ohana wrote: > So I've been looking into restarting ticket #21 now that we have > argparse in python 2.7. -1 to making Python a requirement to run $SAGE_ROOT/sage. -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group,

Re: [sage-devel] Unifying Command line options

2012-01-27 Thread R. Andrew Ohana
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 02:11, William Stein wrote: > > > On Friday, January 27, 2012, William Stein wrote: >> I'm +1 to making sweeping changes to argument syntax & parsing in sage-5.0 >> or sage-6.0. >> > > Though I don't want to loose any features... and have some respect for our > 1-year depr

Re: [sage-devel] Unifying Command line options

2012-01-27 Thread William Stein
On Friday, January 27, 2012, William Stein wrote: > I'm +1 to making sweeping changes to argument syntax & parsing in sage-5.0 or sage-6.0. > Though I don't want to loose any features... and have some respect for our 1-year deprecation policy. > On Friday, January 27, 2012, R. Andrew Ohana wrot

Re: [sage-devel] PyCox: Computing with (finite) Coxeter groups and Iwahori-Hecke algebras

2012-01-27 Thread Nicolas M. Thiery
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 01:21:05AM -0800, davidp wrote: > I just noticed this post to the arXiv. Is Meinholf Geck in touch with > Sage? Yes! We had invited him two years ago at Sage Days 20 in Marseille. He is invited again at the upcoming Sage-Combinat days in Montreal, precisely to discuss the

Re: [sage-devel] Unifying Command line options

2012-01-27 Thread William Stein
I'm +1 to making sweeping changes to argument syntax & parsing in sage-5.0 or sage-6.0. On Friday, January 27, 2012, R. Andrew Ohana wrote: > So I've been looking into restarting ticket #21 now that we have > argparse in python 2.7. The basic premise of the ticket was to make > our command line o

[sage-devel] Re: Unifying Command line options

2012-01-27 Thread R. Andrew Ohana
P.S. Link to the ticket http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/21 (although most of what is there is old to very old). On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 02:04, R. Andrew Ohana wrote: > So I've been looking into restarting ticket #21 now that we have > argparse in python 2.7. The basic premise of the tic

Re: [sage-devel] Unifying Command line options

2012-01-27 Thread David Roe
Come over to Padelford: Robert and I are working on something like this. :-) David On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 02:04, R. Andrew Ohana wrote: > So I've been looking into restarting ticket #21 now that we have > argparse in python 2.7. The basic premise of the ticket was to make > our command line opt

[sage-devel] Unifying Command line options

2012-01-27 Thread R. Andrew Ohana
So I've been looking into restarting ticket #21 now that we have argparse in python 2.7. The basic premise of the ticket was to make our command line options use a standard library, however, since it was opened (a long time ago), the command line options have become an incredibly cluttered mess as

Re: [sage-devel] PyCox: Computing with (finite) Coxeter groups and Iwahori-Hecke algebras

2012-01-27 Thread William Stein
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 1:21 AM, davidp wrote: > I just noticed this post to the arXiv.  Is Meinholf Geck in touch with > Sage? > > --Dave I'm not sure, but he mentions Sage numerous times on page 1, and suggests Sage was the inspiration for him writing the code in Python. Also, he explains how t

Re: [sage-devel] Re: webgl

2012-01-27 Thread William Stein
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 1:10 AM, mmarco wrote: > I have just tested on chromium and firefor under linux. It does work > on both (but i have the impression that performance is better in > chromium). Strangely, it does work on the version of firefox that i > have compiled in my computer, but it does

Re: [sage-devel] Re: xcode and gcc

2012-01-27 Thread R. Andrew Ohana
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 00:51, Georg S. Weber wrote: >  Hi, > > so far, three distinct topics evolved in this thread: > > 1. > Make Sage not needing a C compiler, when one changed only .py files > and then types "sage -b". That's the topic of trac #12365 (see the > original post), and up to now, I

[sage-devel] PyCox: Computing with (finite) Coxeter groups and Iwahori-Hecke algebras

2012-01-27 Thread davidp
I just noticed this post to the arXiv. Is Meinholf Geck in touch with Sage? --Dave Title: PyCox: Computing with (finite) Coxeter groups and Iwahori-Hecke algebras Authors: Meinolf Geck Categories: math.RT Comments: 31 pages MSC-class: 20C40, 20C08 \\ We introduce the computer algebra package {

[sage-devel] Re: webgl

2012-01-27 Thread mmarco
I have just tested on chromium and firefor under linux. It does work on both (but i have the impression that performance is better in chromium). Strangely, it does work on the version of firefox that i have compiled in my computer, but it doesn't in the binary version from the firefox site. I guess

[sage-devel] Minimizing dependencies of Sage library (#12329) needs review

2012-01-27 Thread Jeroen Demeyer
I have a patch to remove unneeded dependencies of the Sage library in spkg/standard/deps (the patch only touches this file). This might speed up builds of Sage, especially upgrades. Please review http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/12329 Thanks, Jeroen. -- To post to this group, send an

Re: [sage-devel] Re: xcode and gcc

2012-01-27 Thread Fernando Perez
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 12:55 AM, Jason Grout wrote: > https://github.com/kennethreitz/osx-gcc-installer is one possible place to > look for gcc, at least. Nice, thanks! I didn't know about that, it's excellent and does help a lot. Cheers, f -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-d

[sage-devel] Re: xcode and gcc

2012-01-27 Thread Jason Grout
On 1/27/12 2:18 AM, Fernando Perez wrote: If you guys can put out a gcc/gfortran installer for the Mac that's a simple download, click, install, you'll benefit lots of people even beyond Sage. https://github.com/kennethreitz/osx-gcc-installer is one possible place to look for gcc, at least.

[sage-devel] Re: xcode and gcc

2012-01-27 Thread Georg S. Weber
Hi, so far, three distinct topics evolved in this thread: 1. Make Sage not needing a C compiler, when one changed only .py files and then types "sage -b". That's the topic of trac #12365 (see the original post), and up to now, I read only supportive comments (to which I say +1 also). 2. Discuss

Re: [sage-devel] Re: xcode and gcc

2012-01-27 Thread Fernando Perez
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 1:33 PM, William Stein wrote: > Also, we could have a dmg available that would install GCC (including > gfortran) somewhere, and could be used to build Sage on OS X. +big_number Even outside the context of Sage, when teaching purely 'scipy stack' to students (many of whom