[sage-devel] Trouble installing sage on combinat

Hi! I am trying to build sage on the combinat.math.washington.edu server and get the following error: . ../lib -L/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/4.6/../../.. -lstdc++ -lm -lc -lgcc_s /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/4.6/crtendS.o /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/4.6/../../../x86_64-linux-gnu/crtn

[sage-devel] Re: matrix constructor signature clash

Am Sonntag, 21. Juni 2015 09:21:31 UTC+2 schrieb Martin R: > > > > Am Sonntag, 21. Juni 2015 03:56:43 UTC+2 schrieb Nils Bruin: >> >> On Saturday, June 20, 2015 at 3:34:06 PM UTC-7, Martin R wrote: >>> >>> >>> What is the bug here? Do you think matrix(2,3,1) should succeed? Do you >>> think it s

Re: [sage-devel] Trouble installing sage on combinat

It seems the directories don't match: the actual directory is /home/anne/sage-6.4.1 which some libraries refer to /home/anne/sage I would reinstall mpir (./sage -f mpir) and hope the problem goes away. On 2015-06-22 09:04, Anne Schilling wrote: libtool: link: `/home/anne/sage/local/lib/libgmp.

[sage-devel] Re: Collecting ideas for posets

> > How should ideas about posets and lattices be collected? (In general: > about some topic X on Sage.) > My opinion is that the only thing you can trust is a ticket in needs_review. Everything else risks being forgotten, on some 5yo trac ticket or an unmaintained wiki page. https://groups.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Collecting ideas for posets

On Mon, 22 Jun 2015, Nathann Cohen wrote: How should ideas about posets and lattices be collected? (In general: about some topic X on Sage.) My opinion is that the only thing you can trust is a ticket in needs_review. Everything else risks being forgotten, on some 5yo trac ticket or an unmai

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Collecting ideas for posets

> True, but what about general "where to go" - discussion above the level of > one function? I'd say that we usually ask them here. > It trac even good for something like this fresh ticket: > http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/18757 ? Real question is not how to do it, > but what to do. Are you fea

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Collecting ideas for posets

On Mon, 22 Jun 2015, Nathann Cohen wrote: True, but what about general "where to go" - discussion above the level of one function? I'd say that we usually ask them here. OK. I'll write some notes to myself and ask about them one-by-one. It trac even good for something like this fresh ticke

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Collecting ideas for posets

Sometimes this sort of discussion happens on one of the more specialsed mailing lists, such as sage-nt, sage-algebra -- or sage-combinat? Perhaps the people active on that list can say whether this discussion might be better there than on sage-devel. John On 22 June 2015 at 11:50, Jori Mäntysalo

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Collecting ideas for posets

> Sometimes this sort of discussion happens on one of the more > specialsed mailing lists, such as sage-nt, sage-algebra -- or > sage-combinat? Perhaps the people active on that list can say whether > this discussion might be better there than on sage-devel. I was about to say that "such forums t

[sage-devel] Re: Collecting ideas for posets

Hi Nathann, On 2015-06-22, Nathann Cohen wrote: >> Sometimes this sort of discussion happens on one of the more >> specialsed mailing lists, such as sage-nt, sage-algebra -- or >> sage-combinat? Perhaps the people active on that list can say whether >> this discussion might be better there than

[sage-devel] About the planarity package

Hi, I was pondering packaging the planarity package in debian, but : - where is the upstream repository ? [the SPKG.txt only gives the author's name] - the patches look nice : were they sent upstream ? Thanks, Snark on #sagemath -- You received this message because you are subscribed to th

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Collecting ideas for posets

> I think there is no "sage-graphs" forum. There is none indeed. Graphs are just part of Sage's code. > Neither is there > "sage-topology". And if you don't consider graphs as a graphs or > topological spaces, then they appear to be combinatorial objects... I never claimed that graph theory was

Re: [sage-devel] About the planarity package

On 2015-06-22 13:21, Julien Puydt wrote: Hi, I was pondering packaging the planarity package in debian, but : - where is the upstream repository ? [the SPKG.txt only gives the author's name] Upstream: https://code.google.com/p/planarity/ But note that the Sage tarball isn't vanilla: it inclu

[sage-devel] Re: About the planarity package

Hell, - where is the upstream repository ? [the SPKG.txt only gives the > author's name] > https://code.google.com/p/planarity/ - the patches look nice : were they sent upstream ? > There is a long litterature about this package on #18187 [1], and even more on private emails that we

[sage-devel] Re: New package with the F4 algorithm (groebner basis computation over finite fields)

Since this topic raises more interest than the giac topic raised by Frederic yesterday, I will pollute it a little by pointing to the ticket (http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Ftrac.sagemath.org%2Fticket%2F18749&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNG_L1Fc90KhKpiCCnDCggjiG5LfVg) where I made a few compa

Re: [sage-devel] About the planarity package

Is upstream aware that code.google.com is closing on Jan 2016? On Monday, June 22, 2015 at 1:53:52 PM UTC+2, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > > On 2015-06-22 13:21, Julien Puydt wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I was pondering packaging the planarity package in debian, but : > > > > - where is the upstream rep

Re: [sage-devel] About the planarity package

> Is upstream aware that code.google.com is closing on Jan 2016? All I can say is that I don't remember us bringing this out during the email exchanges. Nathann -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and s

[sage-devel] Re: complex and unsigned infinity

> > Or your could point to Maxima, not explain anything and say , uh, "What he > said". > In some sense, I think that's why we have it in the first place, though Sympy also has something like this ("zoo"). I'd be very happy to either disallow any comparison or follow what Maxima and Sympy do

Re: [sage-devel] Sage Stack Exchange Site

Far be it from me not to point out relevant information, even if I don't have any interest in it. The Sage StackExchange site is currently closed. At 1+ year in Definition we have to close this proposal. Keep the proposal alive by restarting it. See discuss.area51.stackexchange.com/q/5798 – Rob

Re: [sage-devel] Re: About the planarity package

Hi, Le 22/06/2015 13:53, Nathann Cohen a écrit : Hell, - where is the upstream repository ? [the SPKG.txt only gives the author's name] https://code.google.com/p/planarity/ - the patches look nice : were they sent upstream ? There is a long litterature about this packag

Re: [sage-devel] Re: About the planarity package

> How did a package in such a messy state become standard !? If you honestly want to find out and it's not just trolling, here is all I know: commit 7197d452d277ac0e186776e60176ade03ab952ec Author: Nomail Name Date: Mon Feb 4 14:49:02 2008 -0800 planarity graph O(n) thank you boyer Natha

[sage-devel] Re: complex and unsigned infinity

On Monday, June 22, 2015 at 2:40:53 PM UTC+2, kcrisman wrote: > > Or your could point to Maxima, not explain anything and say , uh, "What he >> said". >> > > In some sense, I think that's why we have it in the first place, though > Sympy also has something like this ("zoo"). I'd be very happy to

[sage-devel] Trouble installing sage on combinat

Hi! I am trying to build sage on the combinat.math.washington.edu server and get the following error: . ../lib -L/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/4.6/../../.. -lstdc++ -lm -lc -lgcc_s /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/4.6/crtendS.o /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/4.6/../../../x86_64-linux-gnu/cr

Re: [sage-devel] Re: About the planarity package

Le 22/06/2015 16:24, Nathann Cohen a écrit : How did a package in such a messy state become standard !? If you honestly want to find out and it's not just trolling, here is all I know: commit 7197d452d277ac0e186776e60176ade03ab952ec Author: Nomail Name Date: Mon Feb 4 14:49:02 2008 -0800

Re: [sage-devel] Re: About the planarity package

Hello, > I was heartily congratulating about having small reasonable patches to > upstream, and you tell me that they're in fact against an heavily patched > upstream, and upstream's licensing situation is muddy... no need to troll > when the facts are so preposterous already. Depends how you see

Re: [sage-devel] Re: About the planarity package

On 2015-06-22 16:18, Julien Puydt wrote: How did a package in such a messy state become standard !? Because somebody (Nathann in this case) decided to clean up the mess. In the resulting Sage package, the "messy state" is no more. Hopefully upstream will apply the fixes which are in Sage and i

Re: [sage-devel] giac/giacpy packages

On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 02:35:19AM -0700, Han Frederic wrote: >I'd like to point out that recently >http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/12375 > was closed. I'd like also to thank here all the participants. >Since sage 6.8.beta5, giac and its cython interface giacpy are avaible >as o

[sage-devel] Re: SageManifolds Install Issue

Hi, In order to avoid any confusion before some solution is found, we have updated the download page to tell that it is no longer possible to install SageManifolds atop of the sagemath Ubuntu package from the PPA. Best wishes, Eric. -- You rec

[sage-devel] Completely remove in-place operations?

Hello, for about 2 weeks in the history in Sage (8 years ago), Sage had optimized in-place operations. Essentially, if you did A += B then this might actually *mutate* the object A in-place if the refcount of A was low enough such that we knew that no other pointers to A existed. See #624.

Re: [sage-devel] Completely remove in-place operations?

On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 1:40 PM, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > Hello, > > for about 2 weeks in the history in Sage (8 years ago), Sage had optimized > in-place operations. Essentially, if you did > > A += B > > then this might actually *mutate* the object A in-place if the refcount of A > was low enough

Re: [sage-devel] Completely remove in-place operations?

What about something explicit, e.g., A.add_inplace(B) which would mutate A and be very clear and explicit. What's the use case? It would also create a lot of interface burden and it would never be supported on every type, I doubt it's worth it. -- You received this message because you a

Re: [sage-devel] Completely remove in-place operations?

On Monday, June 22, 2015 at 6:40:24 PM UTC-7, William wrote: > > What about something explicit, e.g., > >A.add_inplace(B) > > which would mutate A and be very clear and explicit. I actually > expected something like that to exist, but found it doesn't. > There's a performance benefit in