mabshoff wrote:
>
>
> On Dec 10, 7:48 am, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 7:36 AM, Jason Grout
>
>
>
>
The ultimate goal should be to get code into Sage since there is
nearly always common code to factor out and getting more users for
some
2008/12/10 mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> but other than that there is nothing else in Sage I
> would consider myself to be unhappy about.
Wow, that's the best news I have heard all day!
John
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-supp
On Dec 10, 9:15 am, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 8:44 AM, mabshoff
>
>
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> A Sage build is over a gigabyte, involves well over 5 million lines of
> >> code, and is probably bigger than any other single math software
> >> s
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 8:44 AM, mabshoff
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> A Sage build is over a gigabyte, involves well over 5 million lines of
>> code, and is probably bigger than any other single math software
>> system in the world. And amazingly we're doing fine size-wise. I
>> think we can
On Dec 10, 7:48 am, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 7:36 AM, Jason Grout
> >> The ultimate goal should be to get code into Sage since there is
> >> nearly always common code to factor out and getting more users for
> >> some infrastructure bits in Sage ha
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 7:36 AM, Jason Grout
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> mabshoff wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Also, such code could be loaded into a running Sage session easily,
>>> something like the contributions directory of maxima. Personally, I
>>> would love if our special-purpose code (probably to
mabshoff wrote:
>
>
>> Also, such code could be loaded into a running Sage session easily,
>> something like the contributions directory of maxima. Personally, I
>> would love if our special-purpose code (probably too specialized to be
>> included in Sage) were accessible to anyone that had Sag
On Dec 10, 7:22 am, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
dortmund.de> wrote:
> On Dec 10, 7:12 am, Jason Grout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Also, such code could be loaded into a running Sage session easily,
> > something like the contributions directory of maxima. Personally, I
> > would love if our
On Dec 10, 7:12 am, Jason Grout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> William Stein wrote:
> > Note that you could also submit a patch to Sage with the code you're
> > doctesting.
> > I did that with all the tests from both of the books I published, and
> > I encourage you and many others to do the same
William Stein wrote:
> Note that you could also submit a patch to Sage with the code you're
> doctesting.
> I did that with all the tests from both of the books I published, and
> I encourage you and many others to do the same with the code from your
> article. The code would go in a file
>
>
William Stein wrote:
>
> That "sage -t foo.sage" doesn't import the functions somehow is a
> sucky new-ish bug, that needs to be fixed ASAP, in my opinion. This
> is related to recent major changes in how sage -t works on *.sage
> files. See this ticket I just made:
>
> http://trac.sagema
Dan Drake wrote:
> While I am adding to this thread, I'll mention a trick: in the article,
> I want to mention how to get the .sage file -- but to do that, I need to
> know the arXiv URL. But how do you find out the eprint number before you
> submit? The answer is to make your submission early in
On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 at 04:40AM -0800, William Stein wrote:
> Note that you could also submit a patch to Sage with the code you're
> doctesting. I did that with all the tests from both of the books I
> published, and I encourage you and many others to do the same with the
> code from your article.
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 12:28 AM, Dan Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 at 01:43AM -0600, Jason Grout wrote:
>> Cool. I just posted a note on Arxiv with a .sage program file, and
>> I'm seeing the same problem. (I thought the doctests passed, but
>> apparently they don't and
On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 at 01:43AM -0600, Jason Grout wrote:
> Cool. I just posted a note on Arxiv with a .sage program file, and
> I'm seeing the same problem. (I thought the doctests passed, but
> apparently they don't and I'm seeing the same problem; I think I got
> around this once by "including"
Dan Drake wrote:
> I'm preparing an arXiv submission that will include an appendix of Sage
> code along with a separate .sage file with the code. Working with Sage I
> have come to assume that all code not doctested is broken, so I'd like
> to include doctests. I've written up my docstrings, but w
16 matches
Mail list logo