Thanks to everyone. Thanks Robert for taking the time to explain it
all - you have put it very clearly!
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this gro
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 6:46 PM, Aleksej Saushev wrote:
> John H Palmieri writes:
>
>> On Dec 22, 5:34 am, Cedric wrote:
>>> I love SAGE but then there is one flaw in it that I find one of the
>>> most severe in software-design of all. From my layman point of view
>>> (which I'm sure is wrong an
John H Palmieri writes:
> On Dec 22, 5:34 am, Cedric wrote:
>> I love SAGE but then there is one flaw in it that I find one of the
>> most severe in software-design of all. From my layman point of view
>> (which I'm sure is wrong and unjustified) a software that bundles
>> every single of its do
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 3:11 AM, koffie wrote:
> Maybe someone who cares enough should write a SEP=Sage Enhancement
> Proposal about how to make a more modular sage without having
> sacrificing on the user experience and stability of sage. And see how
> many people are willing to put the time and
Maybe someone who cares enough should write a SEP=Sage Enhancement
Proposal about how to make a more modular sage without having
sacrificing on the user experience and stability of sage. And see how
many people are willing to put the time and effort needed into it.
On Dec 23, 11:50 am, koffie wro
I agree with Robert.
And from an enduser point of view I think that being one large bundle
is actually on of the key strength's of sage. I have had some open
source programs which I didn't start using because after having to
hand compiling the third dependancy I thought it wasn't worth the
effort.
On Dec 22, 5:34 am, Cedric wrote:
> I love SAGE but then there is one flaw in it that I find one of the
> most severe in software-design of all. From my layman point of view
> (which I'm sure is wrong and unjustified) a software that bundles
> every single of its dozens dependencies has either a f
To make sure you did not misunderstand me: I suggested disabling
tested for the possibly affected routines altogether.
Anyway, if the dependencies are explicit this problem doesn't even
exist.
On Dec 22, 3:59 pm, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> > But if the routines return
> > different values which are
On 2010-12-22 15:39, Cedric wrote:
> With regard to...
>
> 1.) I don't see a problem with that - the only problem might be the
> rather rigid concept of doctest itsself.
I agree that the doctests are rather rigid, but since they are very
useful, I believe we should certainly not abandon doctests.
With regard to...
1.) I don't see a problem with that - the only problem might be the
rather rigid concept of doctest itsself. But if the routines return
different values which are still mathematically correct and you can't
make doctest account for it then that's the way it shall be, no? You
can a
It would be nice if one could specify a subset of spkgs to use the
system-provided library instead of building it ourselves. For example, have
an environment variable, say,
SAGE_NATIVE_LIBRARY="patch atlas cddlib gsl" make
that lists spkgs for which the distribution package should be used (simi
In a nearly orthogonal direction, I would point out that the programs
Sage is trying to be a 'viable open source alternative' to don't
require various dependencies, as far as I know. You download them and
install them. It's unfortunate that no one has enough time to pick
and choose the very best
12 matches
Mail list logo
