On Mar 17, 2009, at 10:07 AM, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote:
Hi Alex!
Just a mini-warning so that we don't stomp on each other's foot: I
made a couple very minor changes in the schemes code for the
categories (essentially in the parent's constructors/import lists). I
also moved the
On Mar 17, 2009, at 11:42 AM, Carl Witty wrote:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 11:28 AM, Justin Walker jus...@mac.com
wrote:
On Mar 17, 2009, at 10:07 AM, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote:
Just a mini-warning so that we don't stomp on each other's foot: I
made a couple very minor changes
On Mar 16, 2009, at 3:04 AM, John Cremona wrote:
I'm worried when you say that the whole schemes directory is being
scrubbed, since this could either mean thoroughly cleaned up to it
is sparklingly clean and beautiful or deleted, erased completely as
in a well-used blackboard.
I assume
On Mar 16, 2009, at 3:04 AM, John Cremona wrote:
I'm worried when you say that the whole schemes directory is being
scrubbed, since this could either mean thoroughly cleaned up to it
is sparklingly clean and beautiful or deleted, erased completely as
in a well-used blackboard.
I assume
Hi, David,
On Mar 15, 2009, at 6:54 PM, dmharvey wrote:
The constructor for hyperelliptic curves has the following signature:
def HyperellipticCurve(f,h=None,names=None,PP=None)
but the code doesn't seem to use the PP parameter anywhere, and there
are no examples of its use in the
Alex Ghitza might have some comments to add to this.
On Mar 15, 2009, at 7:12 PM, David Harvey wrote:
On Mar 15, 10:00 pm, Justin Walker jus...@mac.com wrote:
The short answer is: we're working on it (as a part of an SD14
project). The whole schemes directory is being scrubbed
On Mar 3, 2009, at 12:58 AM, mabshoff wrote:
Hello folks,
finally there goes 3.4.rc0. Compared to alpha0 there have been plenty
of ReST fixes, improvements to the quadratic forms code and -sdist
fixes. We also finally did remove the doc repo and thereby reduced the
size of the source
On Sep 16, 2008, at 10:43 PM, mabshoff wrote:
Hello folks,
after 251 closed tickets here we go. This is rc5/final and likely
identical to the 3.1.2 release. There was an rc4 that never got
publicly announced since it had some Gremlins in it. As far as we know
there are no know build
Hi, all,
I took a look at the quadratic forms code, to start getting back to
working on Sage. I've made some additions and a few changes, and I
have a patch ready for review. I welcome all comments.
I've doc-tested it, and run some other tests of my own. It seems
stable, but if anyone
Hi, John,
On Sep 14, 2008, at 2:43 PM, John Cremona wrote:
Two things: (1) Does your patch take into account the substantial
patches concerning binary quadratic forms already merged in 3.1.2, see
#3857 and #3946?
Thanks for pointing that out. I've stayed away from the 3.1.2 fun,
but I
On Sep 14, 2008, at 2:58 PM, mabshoff wrote:
On Sep 14, 12:52 pm, Justin Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
Following John's observation, I'll follow the Mercurial approach (I'm
not sure it makes any difference, but I might as well use the tools
available).
:) - The diff is also
Hi, all,
I'm looking at the patches John mentioned in another thread
(http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel/browse_thread/thread/9d7eafe3d36f0d27
). A couple of comments:
1) I'm removing Pari/Magma usage from the code
2) There is now some support for negative definite (using a new
On Sep 14, 2008, at 4:53 PM, William Stein wrote:
On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 1:25 PM, Justin Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
[2] I fussed over this while working on my patch, and finally decided
to leave it alone. Is there any cause to be concerned about
caching,
by code using
On Sep 14, 2008, at 7:59 AM, mabshoff wrote:
Hello folks,
we are getting very close now. We fixed a bunch of blocker doctest
issues and also fixed a long standing memleak in the number field
code. Another memleak we fixed would bite you if you pickled a couple
ten thousand matrices over
On Sep 14, 2008, at 9:28 PM, Justin Walker wrote:
On Sep 14, 2008, at 7:59 AM, mabshoff wrote:
Hello folks,
we are getting very close now. We fixed a bunch of blocker doctest
issues and also fixed a long standing memleak in the number field
code. Another memleak we fixed would bite you
On Sep 14, 2008, at 9:48 PM, mabshoff wrote:
On Sep 14, 7:46 pm, Justin Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sep 14, 2008, at 9:28 PM, Justin Walker wrote:
SNIP
Inspired by a post by William, I ran the tut.tex test, with the
verbose switch.
If anyone's interested, the log file
Hi, Mike,
On Sep 9, 2008, at 9:34 PM, Mike Hansen wrote:
What's the difference between == and is (or, more to the point:
where is this discussed)?
This is a Python thing as == is equality testing and is is memory
address testing. For example,
sage: a = 2
sage: b = 2
sage: a == b
True
Hi, all,
Whilst looking at some code, I noticed that a computation was being
repeated on each call, although the inputs to the computation never
changed (these were values used to define an instance of a class). I
decided to cache the value and return it rather than recomputing it.
To
Hey, Mike,
Thanks for this...
On Sep 9, 2008, at 3:42 PM, Mike Hansen wrote:
I'm not sure about the other stuff, but you should do is None
instead of == None since your times are so low.
sage: a = 2
sage: timeit(a == None)
625 loops, best of 3: 420 µs per loop
sage: timeit(a is None)
On Sep 9, 2008, at 7:25 PM, Jason Grout wrote:
Jason Merrill wrote:
On Sep 9, 6:35 pm, Justin Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi, all,
There may be a more pythonic way to do this--I'm just trying to
translate something I saw in Ruby. I think I've seen at least one
person define
On Sep 9, 2008, at 4:36 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On Sep 9, 6:35 pm, Justin Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
I can't tell if this is just an artifact of some funky debugging
interaction (am I debugging the debugger?), or whether this is really
where the code goes.
Anyone have a clue
Hi, Mike,
On Sep 9, 2008, at 9:34 PM, Mike Hansen wrote:
What's the difference between == and is (or, more to the point:
where is this discussed)?
This is a Python thing as == is equality testing and is is memory
address testing. For example,
Thanks for the quick tutorial; that explains
On Mar 27, 2008, at 3:47 PM, John Cremona wrote:
Although Justin's solution certainly works, one might consider adding
a real_part() function to the quaternion class. But it would not do
to call the function real_part since of course it depends on the
ground field (which in the example is
On Jan 5, 2008, at 7:16 AM, mabshoff wrote:
Hello folks,
Sage 2.9.2 has been released. It is available at
http://sagemath.org/download.html
The following people contributed to this release:
Upgrade from 2.9.1.1 on Mac OS X (10.5.1, Core Duo) without problems.
Tested with
24 matches
Mail list logo
