[sage-devel] patchbot server refuses to connect

It is pingable however. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Should warnings display a traceback?

If we do this, then deprecation warnings would also get full tracebacks, which is something I think we should not have on by default. However, it might be good to have an option somewhere to enable is (and hopefully it won't get lost in the forest that is Sage). Best, Travis -- You received

Re: [sage-devel] Where should binary form reduction live?

There is a binary quadratic forms and a general quadratic forms, but no general binary form that I can find. I don't think this algorithm fits in any of the existing files. Creating a class does seem like overkill, but there doesn't seem to be a place to put it. Rebecca Lauren On Monday,

[sage-devel] Mathematica 11

Some comments about SageMath at this discussion about Mathematica 11: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12249157 -- William (http://wstein.org) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Should warnings display a traceback?

On 2016-08-08 18:51, Volker Braun wrote: import warnings warnings.filterwarnings('error') That turns warnings into exceptions. That is not what I want. I still want to run doctests the "usual" way where warnings are allowed. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the

Re: [sage-devel] Re: trac "diff" button

On Monday, August 8, 2016 at 10:13:25 AM UTC+2, Erik Bray wrote: > > This is the git repository browser that was cobbled on to Sage's Trac > because at some point or another the actual git plugin for Trac was > deemed insufficient I guess. Sage's Trac is the only one like this > that I know

[sage-devel] Re: Should warnings display a traceback?

Traceback in doctests are very minimal, they wouldn't really have more information than the warning. And really we shouldn't test where the warning is coming from (thats imho an implementation detail), only that there is a warning emitted. There is certainly a use case for getting a traceback

[sage-devel] Re: Should warnings display a traceback?

Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > Hello, > > I have often been annoyed by the lack of tracebacks given in warning > messages. Something, I have even replaced a warning with an exception, > just such that I could get a useful traceback. > > Using the warnings and traceback modules, it is possible to

[sage-devel] Should warnings display a traceback?

Hello, I have often been annoyed by the lack of tracebacks given in warning messages. Something, I have even replaced a warning with an exception, just such that I could get a useful traceback. Using the warnings and traceback modules, it is possible to display a traceback with a warning

Re: [sage-devel] Re: trac "diff" button

On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 6:49 PM, William Stein wrote: > > > On Saturday, August 6, 2016, Volker Braun wrote: >> >> On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 5:46:34 PM UTC+2, William wrote: >>> >>> Thanks -- in this case that is perfect, and often that will be all

Re: [sage-devel] Where should binary form reduction live?

On 7 August 2016 at 23:13, Justin C. Walker wrote: > Hi, Rebecca, > > On Aug 7, 2016, at 14:02 , Rebecca Miller wrote: > >> I am implementing Cremona and Stoll's Binary Form Reduction Algorithm. I'm >> just not sure where it should live. I had some houghts but would like >>

[sage-devel] Re: bug in pari interface for roots over finite fields

Hello, > In sage 7.2 and 7.3, the sequence of commands below produces an error in > sage. A It looks like it is calling pari for the computation. A Doing the > analogous commands directly in pari works, so the error is in sage dealing > with the pari output (assuming some integer has to be