On Feb 19, 8:15 am, Dan Grayson wrote:
> Thank you for your remarks, William.
Hi,
> By the way, M2 builds much more easily now, basically because it can,
> if needed, build, and even download and patch for you, all the
> libraries it depends on: singular-factory, singular-libfac, ntl,
> frobb
Thank you for your remarks, William.
By the way, M2 builds much more easily now, basically because it can,
if needed, build, and even download and patch for you, all the
libraries it depends on: singular-factory, singular-libfac, ntl,
frobby, pari, lapack, libgc, gmp, and mpfr. Building seems fl
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 9:20 AM, mabshoff wrote:
>
>
>
> On Feb 18, 8:37 am, Martin Albrecht
> wrote:
>> > So I'd like to know whether the focus should be on trying to
>> > get Macaulay2 integrated in Sage, or to develop this stuff natively in Sage
>> > using Macaulay2 as a cheat sheet (= portin
On Feb 18, 8:37 am, Martin Albrecht
wrote:
> > So I'd like to know whether the focus should be on trying to
> > get Macaulay2 integrated in Sage, or to develop this stuff natively in Sage
> > using Macaulay2 as a cheat sheet (= porting functionality to Sage bit by
> > bit, I guess is what I'm s
> So I'd like to know whether the focus should be on trying to
> get Macaulay2 integrated in Sage, or to develop this stuff natively in Sage
> using Macaulay2 as a cheat sheet (= porting functionality to Sage bit by
> bit, I guess is what I'm saying).
Hi, due to the issues pointed out by Michael
On Feb 18, 5:01 am, Alex Ghitza wrote:
> Hi sage-devel,
Hi Alex,
> I'm trying to get ready for Sage Days 14, and given the focus of the
> workshop some natural questions that occur to me (and are bound to be asked)
> are:
>
> (1) What is the current relationship between Macaulay2 and Sage?
>
