There is now a patch for this at:
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/10470
On Dec 22 2010, 2:09 pm, Nicolas M. Thiery nicolas.thi...@u-
psud.fr wrote:
Hi Rob!
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 03:09:55PM -0800, Rob Beezer wrote:
Symptom: The following code would appear to run
On 15 Dez., 01:55, Robert Bradshaw rober...@math.washington.edu
wrote:
I would strongly object to removing the ability to iterate over
infinite sets, sometimes it's very useful to iterate until something
is found, or to grab a certain number of elements. I would be OK with
ZZ.list() throwing
On Dec 15, 3:17 am, leif not.rea...@online.de wrote:
+1
There's a slight difference between infinite and [non-]enumerable sets
you know... ;-)
Right. ;-) What I would like to prevent is a hang when naively
asking for the *entire* list of elements of an infinite set, without
having to know
On 15 Dez., 17:30, Rob Beezer goo...@beezer.cotse.net wrote:
I'd think that If someone wants a handful of elements from a set they
know is infinite, then they should construct the iterator (which the
list-building routine is using anyway) and just get their elements
from that? A count keyword
On Dec 15, 12:18 pm, leif not.rea...@online.de wrote:
I thought .list(count=12) or whatever would be more convenient.
Yes, that might be a nice enhancement for *somebody* to add, but it
won't solve *my* problem (he says, while scratching an itch). ;-)
Without looking at the code, I suppose
On 15 Dez., 01:55, Robert Bradshaw rober...@math.washington.edu
wrote:
I would strongly object to removing the ability to iterate over
infinite sets, sometimes it's very useful to iterate until something
is found, or to grab a certain number of elements.
+1
--
To post to this group, send an
+1
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 00:55, Simon King simon.k...@uni-jena.de wrote:
On 15 Dez., 01:55, Robert Bradshaw rober...@math.washington.edu
wrote:
I would strongly object to removing the ability to iterate over
infinite sets, sometimes it's very useful to iterate until something
is found, or
