> I'm not sure I understand how it can be an extra burden, and I have no clue
> about the caetera...
Writing the interface code in an optional package means:
- The interface code is no longer part of 'standard sage'. It is
better then to host is somewhere, on some publicly available
repository (wi
On 2015-07-17 13:15, Julien Puydt wrote:
I'm not sure I understand how it can be an extra burden
The problem is not so much with additional packages, it's with
additional packages which only exist for Sage. If there is an active
upstream which would exist anyway without Sage, that's healthy.
Hi,
Le 17/07/2015 12:59, Dima Pasechnik a écrit :
On Friday, 17 July 2015 11:40:04 UTC+1, Snark wrote:
Hi,
Le 16/07/2015 13:16, Jeroen Demeyer a écrit :
> On 2015-07-16 13:03, Nathann Cohen wrote:
>> What is somebody has such an
>> install and *wants* to use it with Sag
On Friday, 17 July 2015 11:40:04 UTC+1, Snark wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Le 16/07/2015 13:16, Jeroen Demeyer a écrit :
> > On 2015-07-16 13:03, Nathann Cohen wrote:
> >> What is somebody has such an
> >> install and *wants* to use it with Sage?
> > This points to the core problem: we simply have no
Hi,
Le 16/07/2015 13:16, Jeroen Demeyer a écrit :
On 2015-07-16 13:03, Nathann Cohen wrote:
What is somebody has such an
install and *wants* to use it with Sage?
This points to the core problem: we simply have no way to guess whether
people want to do that or not.
Here is a possible compromis
On Thursday, July 16, 2015 at 4:17:10 PM UTC+2, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>
> What if mathematica(1) or mathematica('1+1') works on the old version
> but something more complicated does not work?
>
Sage supports only one version of open source and free optional sage
packages, since users can obtai
On Thursday, 16 July 2015 15:20:18 UTC+1, Nathann Cohen wrote:
>
> > What if mathematica(1) or mathematica('1+1') works on the old version
> but
> > something more complicated does not work?
>
> How challenging can it be to figure out the version of mathematica?
sage: mathematica('$VersionNu
> What if mathematica(1) or mathematica('1+1') works on the old version but
> something more complicated does not work?
How challenging can it be to figure out the version of mathematica?
mathematica(1) is just the way I used to detect whether the software
is installed. If we need something more
What if mathematica(1) or mathematica('1+1') works on the old version
but something more complicated does not work?
--
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
t
> Would you be bothered by the fact that you will always see those doctest
> failures that you cannot get rid of, just because somebody installed an
> outdated version of Mathematica on that machine?
>
> Jeroen.
>
My answer is : Yes I will be bothered.
So maybe the system has to know with w
> Now every time you run "make ptestlong" you will see doctest failures
> related to Mathematica. Those failures cannot really be fixed, since the
> features that the doctests need are not available in the old version of
> Mathematica on your machine.
If your problem is with an ancient version of
Sorry, I didn't phrase my question clearly enough, let me try again. I'm
honestly really interested in the answer, both from Sébastien and from
Nathann (and please do not change the question!)
I don't really care myself about the mathematica interface. But it
happens that mathematica 10.0 is i
On Thursday, July 16, 2015 at 1:29:26 PM UTC+2, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>
> On 2015-07-16 13:22, Nathann Cohen wrote:
> > You know that nobody will ever run those things.
> If it's running "make ptestextlong" instead of "make ptestlong" maybe
> they will. It's not really more complicated.
>
Ni
> However, it's only because you used "we" where I assume you mean "Sage
> developers in general". If you replace "we" by any person in particular, I
> no longer agree.
So there are two kinds of people who run the doctests:
- Those who run the doctests and want to see the errors
- Those who run th
On 2015-07-16 13:22, Nathann Cohen wrote:
This points to the core problem: we simply have no way to guess whether
people want to do that or not.
We do not have to care. Doctests must pass, whatever the install is.
If the local install is broken then we should have a way to detect it,
and if we
> Let's assume the story ends here. You use Sage only and other people use
> Mathematica only. If you run "make ptestlong", would you like to see
> failures related to Mathematica? I know I would be bothered by seeing
> those failures.
>
The doctests in src/sage/interfaces/*
are the same as
On 2015-07-16 13:22, Nathann Cohen wrote:
You know that nobody will ever run those things.
If it's running "make ptestextlong" instead of "make ptestlong" maybe
they will. It's not really more complicated.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-deve
> This points to the core problem: we simply have no way to guess whether
> people want to do that or not.
We do not have to care. Doctests must pass, whatever the install is.
If the local install is broken then we should have a way to detect it,
and if we detect it we must not run the doctests au
On 2015-07-16 13:13, Nathann Cohen wrote:
Well, perhaps we could fix the problems that the doctests report,
so that Sage gets better?
Of course we should fix the failures, but that's really not the point of
this discussion.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Go
On 2015-07-16 13:03, Nathann Cohen wrote:
What is somebody has such an
install and *wants* to use it with Sage?
This points to the core problem: we simply have no way to guess whether
people want to do that or not.
Here is a possible compromise proposal:
* keep default optional package as they
> Let's assume the story ends here. You use Sage only and other people use
> Mathematica only. If you run "make ptestlong", would you like to see
> failures related to Mathematica? I know I would be bothered by seeing those
> failures.
Well, perhaps we could fix the problems that the doctests
On 2015-07-16 12:51, Sébastien Labbé wrote:
I don't really care myself about the mathematica interface. But it
happens that mathematica 10.0 is installed on my machine in my lab and
that most of the people in my lab use mathematica rather than sage. They
won't test the mathematica doctests in the
I also believe that we should test them. The very fact that there are
broken doctests that we did not fix only because we never run them
proves it (see comment 7 of #18908).
Also, there are two things that you seem to take for granted:
- "[...] does not mean that I care about Sage doctest failures
> By automatically running those tests, you are forcing people to care
> about stuff that they didn't want to care about.
>
>
I don't really care myself about the mathematica interface. But it happens
that mathematica 10.0 is installed on my machine in my lab and that most of
the people in my
Hello Nathann,
I do not agree with testing all external packages. The fact that I
happen to have a magma/maple/whatever installation on my computer does
not mean that I care about Sage doctest failures. Maybe I have a version
of the external package which is not fully compatible with Sage but
On Wednesday, 15 July 2015 14:27:02 UTC+1, John Cremona wrote:
>
>
>
> On 15 July 2015 at 14:19, Nathann Cohen
> > wrote:
>
>> > yes, this looks about right. Also, for more of this:
>>
>> I added matlab, maple, macaulay2, octave and matlab with the same test
>> pattern. I did not add mathematic
It does work for me (with mathematica installed):
$ sage
┌┐
│ SageMath Version 6.8.beta8, Release Date: 2015-07-10 │
│ Type "notebook()" for the browser-based notebook interface.│
│ Type "help()" for help.
On 15 July 2015 at 14:19, Nathann Cohen wrote:
> > yes, this looks about right. Also, for more of this:
>
> I added matlab, maple, macaulay2, octave and matlab with the same test
> pattern. I did not add mathematica: on my machine, ' mathematica(1)'
> hangs forever (I don't have it).
>
Same her
> yes, this looks about right. Also, for more of this:
I added matlab, maple, macaulay2, octave and matlab with the same test
pattern. I did not add mathematica: on my machine, ' mathematica(1)'
hangs forever (I don't have it).
The code is getting uglier, so if you know how it could be rewritten
On Wednesday, 15 July 2015 12:28:08 UTC+1, Nathann Cohen wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> > echo 'quit;' | magma -b -n
>
> Actually, the test will appear in a Python script (and we can use any
> of Sage's functions). We can of course run this external command, but
> wouldn't there be an easier way to te
Hello,
> echo 'quit;' | magma -b -n
Actually, the test will appear in a Python script (and we can use any
of Sage's functions). We can of course run this external command, but
wouldn't there be an easier way to test this? To illustrate, the test
for Cplex is the following:
try:
MixedIntegerL
On 15 July 2015 at 10:43, Nathann Cohen wrote:
> Hello everybody,
>
> Nowadays when running 'sage -t', one automatically runs all tests
> flagged with '#optional - X' for all installed packages X which are
> [optional+new_style].
>
> But many doctests are flagged with '#optional - X' where X is n
Hello everybody,
Nowadays when running 'sage -t', one automatically runs all tests
flagged with '#optional - X' for all installed packages X which are
[optional+new_style].
But many doctests are flagged with '#optional - X' where X is not even
a package, e.g. when X is a proprietary software that
33 matches
Mail list logo
