Hi Nick,
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 09:12:54AM -0700, Nick Alexander wrote:
> > Test(obj) returns something that provides all kinds of functionality
> > and methods for testing said object. This can call certain _ methods
> > on obj.
>
> +1 to this, -1 to lazy attributes, properties, etc.
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 06:33:42PM +0200, William Stein wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 6:30 PM, Robert
> Bradshaw wrote:
> >
> > On Jun 24, 2009, at 12:52 AM, William Stein wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> But, err, guys, are you telling *me* that you want an
> >> attribute here
> >>
William Stein wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 6:09 PM, Nicolas M.
> Thiery wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 09:52:51AM +0200, William Stein wrote:
One thing I am not very keen on is that to get the list of available
tests, one need to do:
sage: t = Test(foo)
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 6:09 PM, Nicolas M.
Thiery wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 09:52:51AM +0200, William Stein wrote:
>> >
>> > One thing I am not very keen on is that to get the list of available
>> > tests, one need to do:
>> >
>> > sage: t = Test(foo)
>> > sage: t.ass
>> >
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 09:52:51AM +0200, William Stein wrote:
> >
> > One thing I am not very keen on is that to get the list of available
> > tests, one need to do:
> >
> > sage: t = Test(foo)
> > sage: t.ass
> >
> > But I guess I can live with that (in practice, I myself will be u
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 6:30 PM, Robert
Bradshaw wrote:
>
> On Jun 24, 2009, at 12:52 AM, William Stein wrote:
>
>>
>> But, err, guys, are you telling *me* that you want an
>> attribute here
>> instead of a method? Or should this be:
>
> One new attribute in tab completion
On Jun 24, 2009, at 12:52 AM, William Stein wrote:
>
> But, err, guys, are you telling *me* that you want an
> attribute here
> instead of a method? Or should this be:
One new attribute in tab completion is fine. A dozen, not so much. I
still like the approach below b
> Test(obj) returns something that provides all kinds of functionality
> and methods for testing said object. This can call certain _ methods
> on obj.
+1 to this, -1 to lazy attributes, properties, etc.
Nick
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send ema
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 9:18 AM, Nicolas M.
Thiery wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 08:49:20AM +0200, William Stein wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 8:33 AM, Nicolas M.
>> Thiery wrote:
>> >
>> > On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 12:01:58AM -0400, David Roe wrote:
>> >> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 7:08 PM
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 08:49:20AM +0200, William Stein wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 8:33 AM, Nicolas M.
> Thiery wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 12:01:58AM -0400, David Roe wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 7:08 PM, Nicolas M. Thiery
> >> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 8:33 AM, Nicolas M.
Thiery wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 12:01:58AM -0400, David Roe wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 7:08 PM, Nicolas M. Thiery
>> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 10:29:34AM +0200, Franco Saliola wrote:
>> > > I'm also in favor of _test_
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 12:01:58AM -0400, David Roe wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 7:08 PM, Nicolas M. Thiery
> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 10:29:34AM +0200, Franco Saliola wrote:
> > > I'm also in favor of _test_X to avoid cluttering up the tab
> > > completion. Another opti
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 7:08 PM, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 10:29:34AM +0200, Franco Saliola wrote:
> > > I'm also in favor of _test_X to avoid cluttering up the tab
> > > completion. Another option to increase visibility would be to have a
> > > test object, e.g.
> > >
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 10:29:34AM +0200, Franco Saliola wrote:
> > I'm also in favor of _test_X to avoid cluttering up the tab
> > completion. Another option to increase visibility would be to have a
> > test object, e.g.
> >
> > sage: foo.test.associativity()
> > True
>
> +1. I think it merges
+1 from me as well.
David
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 4:29 AM, Franco Saliola wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 8:05 AM, Robert
> Bradshaw wrote:
> >
> > On Jun 22, 2009, at 11:44 AM, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 09:29:46AM -0700, Nicolas Thiéry wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Jun
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 8:05 AM, Robert
Bradshaw wrote:
>
> On Jun 22, 2009, at 11:44 AM, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 09:29:46AM -0700, Nicolas Thiéry wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 04:40:50PM +0200, William Stein wrote:
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 9:03 AM, Nicolas M
On Jun 22, 2009, at 11:44 AM, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 09:29:46AM -0700, Nicolas Thiéry wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 04:40:50PM +0200, William Stein wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 9:03 AM, Nicolas M.
To ease the reviewing of the category code, and also to m
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 09:29:46AM -0700, Nicolas Thiéry wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 04:40:50PM +0200, William Stein wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 9:03 AM, Nicolas M.
> > > To ease the reviewing of the category code, and also to make it more
> > > generic and useful, I have extracted the
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 09:20:56PM +0200, William Stein wrote:
> Of related interest, there are 8 publicly visible methods on SageObject:
>
> sage: s = SageObject()
> sage: s.
> s.categorys.db s.dumps.dumps s.rename
> s.reset_name s.saves.version
>
> I think I
2009/6/18 Ondrej Certik :
>
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 1:20 PM, William Stein wrote:
>
>> Of related interest, there are 8 publicly visible methods on SageObject:
>>
>> sage: s = SageObject()
>> sage: s.
>> s.category s.db s.dump s.dumps s.rename
>> s.reset_name s.save
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 1:20 PM, William Stein wrote:
> Of related interest, there are 8 publicly visible methods on SageObject:
>
> sage: s = SageObject()
> sage: s.
> s.category s.db s.dump s.dumps s.rename
> s.reset_name s.save s.version
>
> I think I created a
2009/6/18 Nicolas M. Thiery :
>
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 04:40:50PM +0200, William Stein wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 9:03 AM, Nicolas M.
>> > To ease the reviewing of the category code, and also to make it more
>> > generic and useful, I have extracted the test framework code out of
>> > th
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 04:40:50PM +0200, William Stein wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 9:03 AM, Nicolas M.
> > To ease the reviewing of the category code, and also to make it more
> > generic and useful, I have extracted the test framework code out of
> > the categories and into SageObject.
> >
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 9:03 AM, Nicolas M.
Thiery wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> To ease the reviewing of the category code, and also to make it more
> generic and useful, I have extracted the test framework code out of
> the categories and into SageObject.
>
> See also: http://groups.google.com/group
24 matches
Mail list logo
