Re: [sage-devel] Graph() construction with edge function

2015-10-15 Thread Jori Mäntysalo
Quoting Nathann Cohen : So should the "edge-detection" function be required to return true for any pair of vertices joined by an edge, or should there be an edge constructed between any pair of vertices for which the edge-detection function returns true? The best for me is to request that the

Re: [sage-devel] Graph() construction with edge function

2015-10-15 Thread Nathann Cohen
> But we should have a documented unified policy to this. As an example, if > Graph(.., f) assumes f to be symmetric without checking, then Poset(..., f) > should assume that f does not define a loop on elements and so on. Right now the Poset function does not delegate the job of building the digr

[sage-devel] Manifold tickets ready for review

2015-10-15 Thread Eric Gourgoulhon
Dear Sage devs, SageManifolds has been split in various tickets for submission to Sage. They are now ready for review at http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/18528 This split has been the opportunity to reorganize many things in the project, among which: - the dise

[sage-devel] Re: [SPAM: 9.600] Fwd: [sage-trac] #10295: Upgrading pexpect

2015-10-15 Thread François Bissey
I'll go further: pexpect 3.3 (with patch) has been used in sage-on-gentoo for a while now. One of the missing piece is that we need a matching patch in sagenb which potentially means a new release of sagenb. I don't know the current development status (or lack thereof) of sagenb these days. Fra

[sage-devel] Re: [SPAM: 9.600] Fwd: [sage-trac] #10295: Upgrading pexpect

2015-10-15 Thread kcrisman
> I'll go further: pexpect 3.3 (with patch) has been used in > sage-on-gentoo for a while now. One of the missing piece is that we need > a matching patch in sagenb which potentially means a new release of > sagenb. > I don't know the current development status (or lack thereof) of sagenb >

Re: [sage-devel] Re: [SPAM: 9.600] Fwd: [sage-trac] #10295: Upgrading pexpect

2015-10-15 Thread François Bissey
On 10/16/15 14:29, kcrisman wrote: Though I guess one would have to upgrade sagenb and pexpect simultaneously? You got that part right, it will have to be simultaneous. Bill can you update the branch for a version with the commit in question included? Is it even released yet? Francois -- You

Re: [sage-devel] Re: [SPAM: 9.600] Fwd: [sage-trac] #10295: Upgrading pexpect

2015-10-15 Thread Bill Page
The version of pexpect with the new option is still a branch called https://github.com/pexpect/pexpect/tree/superfluous-sleep I think they are waiting for us to say that it works with Sage. Sorry, I really dont understand what is required in order to update a branch on git.sagemath.org

Re: [sage-devel] Re: [SPAM: 9.600] Fwd: [sage-trac] #10295: Upgrading pexpect

2015-10-15 Thread Francois Bissey
I can do that. I’ll see what’s involved for sage-on-gentoo I may be able to deploy it there first. François > On 16/10/2015, at 15:29, Bill Page wrote: > > The version of pexpect with the new option is still a branch called > > https://github.com/pexpect/pexpect/tree/superfluous-sleep > > I t

Re: [sage-devel] Graph() construction with edge function

2015-10-15 Thread Rob Beezer
Dear Nathann, Yes, I think if the documentation screams "implements a symmetric relation" that would be a big improvement. And maybe a doctest illustrating how it can go bad? Thanks very much for looking after this one. I am a little familiar with that constructor, I'm sure you will have fuu

[sage-devel] Fwd: [sage-trac] #10295: Upgrading pexpect

2015-10-15 Thread Bill Page
Is anyone interested in helping to resolve this old pexpect issue? Dealing with the Sage development process and in particular Sage package management is a bit beyond me but François Bissey created a branch almost 5 months ago with an updated version of pexpect that worked with the version of Sage