Am Sonntag, 21. Juni 2015 09:21:31 UTC+2 schrieb Martin R:
Am Sonntag, 21. Juni 2015 03:56:43 UTC+2 schrieb Nils Bruin:
On Saturday, June 20, 2015 at 3:34:06 PM UTC-7, Martin R wrote:
What is the bug here? Do you think matrix(2,3,1) should succeed? Do you
think it should produce a
Am Sonntag, 21. Juni 2015 03:56:43 UTC+2 schrieb Nils Bruin:
On Saturday, June 20, 2015 at 3:34:06 PM UTC-7, Martin R wrote:
What is the bug here? Do you think matrix(2,3,1) should succeed? Do you
think it should produce a different error message?
No, I think that matrix(nrows, ncols,
On Friday, June 19, 2015 at 5:29:42 PM UTC-7, David Roe wrote:
Another option might be to force certain construction paths to use keyword
arguments. For example,
matrix(4,4,scalar = x+y)
matrix(4,4,iterator = x+y)
David
Indeed, but then: how is this more convenient than the following?
On Saturday, June 20, 2015 at 9:15:06 AM UTC-7, Martin R wrote:
I don't understand this. I just traced matrix(2,2,x) and this is handled
by _matrix_constructor. I don't see why matrix(2,2,x) needs to return a
diagonal matrix. Could you please explain what you mean with
matrix(n,n,c) is
The problem with matrix(n,n,c) is that it's actually coming from matrix
rings! Scalars should probably coerce in there to make A - 1 work. It's
something supported on a level below.
I don't understand this. I just traced matrix(2,2,x) and this is handled
by _matrix_constructor. I don't
Am Samstag, 20. Juni 2015 18:44:30 UTC+2 schrieb Nils Bruin:
On Saturday, June 20, 2015 at 9:15:06 AM UTC-7, Martin R wrote:
I don't understand this. I just traced matrix(2,2,x) and this is handled
by _matrix_constructor. I don't see why matrix(2,2,x) needs to return a
diagonal matrix.
On Saturday, June 20, 2015 at 3:34:06 PM UTC-7, Martin R wrote:
What is the bug here? Do you think matrix(2,3,1) should succeed? Do you
think it should produce a different error message?
No, I think that matrix(nrows, ncols, element) sould fail, unless element
is callable or iterable.
On 20/06/15 23:21, Nils Bruin wrote:
On Saturday, June 20, 2015 at 11:55:02 AM UTC-7, Martin R wrote:
Yes, that's quite clear. _matrix_constructor determines nrows (2) and
ncols (3) and the ring (Symbolic Ring) and calls
matrix_space.MatrixSpace(ring, nrows, ncols)(entries). This fails,
On Saturday, June 20, 2015 at 11:55:02 AM UTC-7, Martin R wrote:
Yes, that's quite clear. _matrix_constructor determines nrows (2) and
ncols (3) and the ring (Symbolic Ring) and calls
matrix_space.MatrixSpace(ring, nrows, ncols)(entries). This fails, since
entries is a single element.
Am Samstag, 20. Juni 2015 23:21:21 UTC+2 schrieb Nils Bruin:
On Saturday, June 20, 2015 at 11:55:02 AM UTC-7, Martin R wrote:
Yes, that's quite clear. _matrix_constructor determines nrows (2) and
ncols (3) and the ring (Symbolic Ring) and calls
matrix_space.MatrixSpace(ring, nrows,
Another option might be to force certain construction paths to use keyword
arguments. For example,
matrix(4,4,scalar = x+y)
matrix(4,4,iterator = x+y)
David
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 11:03 AM, Nils Bruin nbr...@sfu.ca wrote:
On Friday, June 19, 2015 at 9:10:41 AM UTC-7, Darij Grinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, June 17, 2015 at 7:48:15 AM UTC-7, Darij Grinberg wrote:
Unfortunately, currently the ducktyping is not just in the matrix
constructor; it is split across the three stations I mentioned (matrix
constructor, matrix space, matrix class). Apparently every single of
our matrix
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 5:45 PM, Nils Bruin nbr...@sfu.ca wrote:
On Wednesday, June 17, 2015 at 7:48:15 AM UTC-7, Darij Grinberg wrote:
Unfortunately, currently the ducktyping is not just in the matrix
constructor; it is split across the three stations I mentioned (matrix
constructor, matrix
On Friday, June 19, 2015 at 9:10:41 AM UTC-7, Darij Grinberg wrote:
Unfortunately, this is invited by the design of sage: The __call__
entry
on a parent is the main interface to element construction and since this
is
conversion, all kinds of wild input are allowed.
I think this is
Hi,
On Tuesday, 16 June 2015 20:10:05 UTC+2, Nils Bruin wrote:
Tiebreaker needed:
We have a whole bunch of ways in which a matrix can be constructed. Some
of the possible signatures we support according to the documentation:
A)
matrix(n,m, callable f)
which constructs the n x m matrix
On Wednesday, June 17, 2015 at 5:52:20 AM UTC-7, Darij Grinberg wrote:
I have a feeling that at least one reply to this message will try to
justify the status quo by claiming that users cannot be expected to go
search the doc for the right constructor, that the current syntax is the
Quote of the day :-)
On 2015-06-17 14:52, Darij Grinberg wrote:
Ducktyping has its limits when the pond is
bottomless and has frogs, chameleons, kraken, dead things and horrors
unknown.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
sage-devel group.
To
Hi Nils,
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 4:37 PM, Nils Bruin nbr...@sfu.ca wrote:
On Wednesday, June 17, 2015 at 5:52:20 AM UTC-7, Darij Grinberg wrote:
Here is that response then. For the most part, matrix does work nicely and I
really appreciate the typing it saves.
I think a good interface design
18 matches
Mail list logo
