On May 14, 11:51 pm, "Nicolas M. Thiery"
wrote:
> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 10:40:26PM -0700, mabshoff wrote:
> Note that I did not choose to go for Symmetrica in the first place!
> In MuPAD-Combinat, I already had done the work of replacing it
> whenever possible by lrcalc.
I looked at lrcal
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 10:40:26PM -0700, mabshoff wrote:
> > > > * Solaris: I finally *fixed* the symmetrica issues and all it took
> > > > was 6 hours of staring at disgusting code.
> ...
> > And thanks so much for the investment you did into this.
> ...
> In the end I know that there are bits
On May 14, 1:18 pm, "Nicolas M. Thiery"
wrote:
> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 08:34:56PM +0100, Martin Albrecht wrote:
Hi,
> > > * Solaris: I finally *fixed* the symmetrica issues and all it took
> > > was 6 hours of staring at disgusting code.
>
> > Congratulations!
Thanks.
> And thanks so muc
On May 14, 2009, at 2:43 PM, Gonzalo Tornaria wrote:
> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Robert Bradshaw
> wrote:
>>
>> On May 14, 2009, at 10:22 AM, Craig Citro wrote:
>>
I'm currently building/doctesting with (1) in place, and I'll
report
back soon. gen.pyx passes all tests, so
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
>
> On May 14, 2009, at 10:22 AM, Craig Citro wrote:
>
>>> I'm currently building/doctesting with (1) in place, and I'll report
>>> back soon. gen.pyx passes all tests, so I suspect we're probably
>>> safe.
>>>
>>
>> Doctesting is done, and
On May 14, 2009, at 1:27 PM, Craig Citro wrote:
>
>> This is the right fix. Looks good--are you sure we don't use pari's
>> sum anywhere else?
>>
>
> Well, I'm not 100% sure ... but given that the Python and pari ones
> accept *different* numbers of arguments, I suspect we're okay. I tried
> usin
> This is the right fix. Looks good--are you sure we don't use pari's
> sum anywhere else?
>
Well, I'm not 100% sure ... but given that the Python and pari ones
accept *different* numbers of arguments, I suspect we're okay. I tried
using search_src to find cases with two or more commas in a call
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 08:34:56PM +0100, Martin Albrecht wrote:
>
> > * Solaris: I finally *fixed* the symmetrica issues and all it took
> > was 6 hours of staring at disgusting code.
>
> Congratulations!
And thanks so much for the investment you did into this.
I very much hope Alex will get
On May 14, 2009, at 10:22 AM, Craig Citro wrote:
>> I'm currently building/doctesting with (1) in place, and I'll report
>> back soon. gen.pyx passes all tests, so I suspect we're probably
>> safe.
>>
>
> Doctesting is done, and no troubles -- so I've posted a patch here:
>
> http://trac.sagema
> * Solaris: I finally *fixed* the symmetrica issues and all it took
> was 6 hours of staring at disgusting code.
Congratulations!
Martin
--
name: Martin Albrecht
_pgp: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x8EF0DC99
_otr: 47F43D1A 5D68C36F 468BAEBA 640E8856 D7951CCF
_www: http:/
I like Craig's solution (but have not yet tested his patch). Thanks, Craig!
John
2009/5/14 Craig Citro :
>
>> I'm currently building/doctesting with (1) in place, and I'll report
>> back soon. gen.pyx passes all tests, so I suspect we're probably safe.
>>
>
> Doctesting is done, and no troubles
> I'm currently building/doctesting with (1) in place, and I'll report
> back soon. gen.pyx passes all tests, so I suspect we're probably safe.
>
Doctesting is done, and no troubles -- so I've posted a patch here:
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/6039
-cc
--~--~-~--~~-
On May 14, 9:46 am, Craig Citro wrote:
> > I don't think they would rename "sum" to please us!
>
> And I really really don't think they should. After all, the issue is
> that python and pari both use the same name for something -- we might
> as well be asking python to rename their sum funct
>>> Your comment about the sum function suggests to me that something
>>> similar might be behind the weird thing I reported yesterday.
>>
Yep, this is exactly the cause. If you look at rational.pyx, it
includes libs/pari/decl.pxi, which contains a declaration for Pari's
sum function. This then t
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 4:57 AM, John Cremona wrote:
>
> 2009/5/14 Michael Abshoff :
>>
>> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 4:45 AM, John Cremona wrote:
>>>
>>> Your comment about the sum function suggests to me that something
>>> similar might be behind the weird thing I reported yesterday.
>>
>> Yeah,
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 4:55 AM, David Joyner wrote:
>
>
> Will 4.0.a0 be released sometime today? (I'm leaving early tomorrow morning
> for SD15 and may not get internet access quickly when I arrive.)
Well, my main goal is to get ecl into 4.0.a0. Since the status meeting
from Thursday was bu
2009/5/14 Michael Abshoff :
>
> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 4:45 AM, John Cremona wrote:
>>
>> Your comment about the sum function suggests to me that something
>> similar might be behind the weird thing I reported yesterday.
>
> Yeah, we ought to suggest to the pari people to rename such generic
I
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 7:43 AM, mabshoff wrote:
>
>
...
>
> Ok, checking the wiki at http://wiki.sagemath.org/symbolics/pynac_todo/push
> three hours ago we were at
>
> == Doctest status: May 14 ==
>
> As of 1:03am, we have 66 failures in 18 files.
>
...
> sage -t devel/sage-symbolics/sage
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 4:45 AM, John Cremona wrote:
>
> Your comment about the sum function suggests to me that something
> similar might be behind the weird thing I reported yesterday.
Yeah, we ought to suggest to the pari people to rename such generic
function. Even with C++ code in Sage havi
Your comment about the sum function suggests to me that something
similar might be behind the weird thing I reported yesterday.
If you take a fresh clone of 3.4.2, and in the file
sage/rings/rational.pyx add this function:
def dummy(self):
return sum([a for a in self.list()],0)
say a
On May 14, 4:31 am, mabshoff wrote:
> Ok, *still* no alpha (I caught up with sleep yesterday-ish), but here
> we go:
>
> * 75% coverage: Still at 74.4%, but pynac will get us over 75%.
>
> * pynac: Number of failing doctests keesp decreasing - I am not
> keeping track of this, so somebody els
Ok, *still* no alpha (I caught up with sleep yesterday-ish), but here
we go:
* 75% coverage: Still at 74.4%, but pynac will get us over 75%.
* pynac: Number of failing doctests keesp decreasing - I am not
keeping track of this, so somebody else has to update on this
* 64 bit OSX: does now pa
2009/5/11 mabshoff :
>
> Ok, no 4.0.a0 yet, but it should drop fairly soon. An update of what
> is going on:
>
> * 75% coverage - we are already close at 74.4% or so and the pynac
> symbolics switch will get us past 75%. There is also a bunch of code
> in trac that should increase coverage even f
23 matches
Mail list logo
