Hi Jeroen,
On 2015-03-04, Jeroen Demeyer jdeme...@cage.ugent.be wrote:
Anyway, continuing the above example:
sage: E += E
we got coercion
The fact that __iadd__ calls _add_ would be analogous to __richcmp__
calling _cmp_ instead of __cmp__. And that is what I want to do.
According to the
On 2015-03-04 16:34, Simon King wrote:
one should perhaps rather support _richcmp_ and _cmp_,
where the default __richcmp__ tries to call _richcmp_ after coercion and
falls back to _cmp_ if it fails.
That's exactly how things are currently done (except there is also some
_richcmp_c_impl and
Doh! I just saw that your patch was for Makefile.in and not Makefile.
of course!!! ;-) That explains de problem with the distclean.
Rebuilding. and will report back.
Carl
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
sage-devel group.
To unsubscribe
Would it also be possible to check if (python) rich comparisons are
implemented and use those first before falling back to _cmp_, or having the
default try to call the rich comparisons? I remember implementing the rich
comparisons but then I ran cmp(x, y) with the instances of this class x,y
Simon King wrote:
According to the documentation, one is allowed to treat __richcmp__
separate from __cmp__. Hence, it is legal to have separate behaviour
for ,= etc and for cmp(,).
Is that possibility used in Sage somewhere?
Yes, see src/sage/rings/real_mpfi.pyx.
--
Marc
--
You
On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 05:17:02AM -0800, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote:
The few times I played with comparison functions, I found what we have
quite confusing, especially the discrpancy between Python and Cython
classes, so any simplification would be welcomed.
And if it also eases the
On Wednesday, March 4, 2015 at 5:47:59 AM UTC-8, Simon King wrote:
But wouldn't we still have the complication for Cython classes, that one
has to actually *copy* code from sage.structure.element.Element? If I
recall correctly, this is needed in order to create hashable elements
(if you
Hello,
many thanks to the persons running patchbots. However they certainly
want to know that the patchbot at
6.6.beta2 Ubuntu/14.04/i686/3.13.0-40-generic/arando
http://patchbot.sagemath.org/ticket/?machine=Ubuntu:14.04:i686:3.13.0-40-generic:arandostatus=open
suffers from this:
doctest:1224:
The upgrade to setuptools 12.2 triggered that. It was occasional before
but now systematic. We already have a ticket positively reviewed for it.
http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/17875
François
On 5/03/2015, at 20:44, Ralf Stephan gtrw...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
many thanks to the persons
On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 08:47:40PM +, Simon King wrote:
How should I fix this?
By providing a starting point for the summation:
sage: sum([myElement]).parent()
ModularFormsRing(n=3) over Integer Ring
sage: myElement.parent()
ModularForms(n=3, k=4, ep=1) over Integer Ring
Hi Volker!
On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 02:23:47PM -0800, Volker Braun wrote:
I'm guessing you are hitting resource limits, e.g. compare ipcs -l
inside and outside of the docker container.
Thanks for the tip!
There does not seem to be a major difference though; just a few less
queues
On 4 March 2015 at 08:11, Nicolas M. Thiery nicolas.thi...@u-psud.fr wrote:
On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 08:47:40PM +, Simon King wrote:
How should I fix this?
By providing a starting point for the summation:
sage: sum([myElement]).parent()
ModularFormsRing(n=3) over Integer Ring
Hello,
I am trying to simplify and optimize the comparison part of the
coercion framework at #17890.
There is one convention we currently have in Sage which is posing an
obstacle: if a Python class (not a Cython cdef class) inheriting from
Element defines both _cmp_c_impl and __cmp__, then
For the last two in your list it is quite possible that I wrote the
code and did not understand what I was doing at the time, just happy
that what I wrote worked. (Particularly true of the
WeierstrassIsomorphism code which I wrote in 2007, the very first
Sage/python code I ever did write). So
It didn't work. But then again, I did a make distclean, so the Makefile
probably got recreated. I have to familiarise myself with the Makefiles,
directories, etc, before I can find what would be the fix. Rebuilding and
running the tests takes too long. I read the installation documentation and
The few times I played with comparison functions, I found what we have
quite confusing, especially the discrpancy between Python and Cython
classes, so any simplification would be welcomed.
And if it also eases the transition towards Python 3 that would be great.
--
You received this message
On 2015-03-04 14:14, Simon King wrote:
Priority in the sense of if you want to implement comparison for
elements, then implement _cmp_ rather than __cmp__?
Yes. In other words: if a Python class has both __cmp__ and _cmp_, the
coercion framework should call _cmp_ (which will default to
Hi Jeroen,
On 2015-03-04, Jeroen Demeyer jdeme...@cage.ugent.be wrote:
On 2015-03-04 14:14, Simon King wrote:
Priority in the sense of if you want to implement comparison for
elements, then implement _cmp_ rather than __cmp__?
Yes. In other words: if a Python class has both __cmp__ and _cmp_,
Hi Jeroen,
On 2015-03-04, Jeroen Demeyer jdeme...@cage.ugent.be wrote:
In #17890, I want to rename _cmp_c_impl to _cmp_ and make it cpdef (like
the other arithmetic functions such as _add_). Then I also would like to
reverse the convention and make _cmp_ take priority over __cmp__.
Priority
On 2015-03-04 14:47, Simon King wrote:
I don't agree with that description. If a Python class has both __cmp__
and _cmp_ (or both __add__ and _add_), then of course __cmp__ (resp.
__add__) are called.
If a Python class has __add__ and _add_, then the *coercion framework*
will use _add_, not
Hi Jeroen,
On 2015-03-04, Jeroen Demeyer jdeme...@cage.ugent.be wrote:
On 2015-03-04 14:47, Simon King wrote:
I don't agree with that description. If a Python class has both __cmp__
and _cmp_ (or both __add__ and _add_), then of course __cmp__ (resp.
__add__) are called.
If a Python class
On 2015-03-04 15:18, Simon King wrote:
No. If a Python class has just *some* __add__, then the coercion framework
is out of the game. It must be sage.structure.element.ModuleElement.__add__,
or it won't work. Example:
sage: from sage.structure.element import ModuleElement
sage: class
22 matches
Mail list logo
