sympy: install bin/test and bin/py.bench with ./setup.py sdist

details: http://hg.sympy.org/sympy/rev/85d6378c55cc changeset: 1905:85d6378c55cc user: Ondrej Certik [EMAIL PROTECTED] date: Tue Nov 18 17:07:53 2008 +0100 description: install bin/test and bin/py.bench with ./setup.py sdist But do not install them with ./setup.py install. This is

[sympy commit] r3104 - wiki

Author: ondrej.certik Date: Tue Nov 18 08:48:15 2008 New Revision: 3104 Modified: wiki/FrontPage.wiki Log: Edited wiki page through web user interface. Modified: wiki/FrontPage.wiki == --- wiki/FrontPage.wiki

sympy: Added tag sympy-0.6.3.beta2 for changeset e13f0bb3af7e

details: http://hg.sympy.org/sympy/rev/d1019a5c66d1 changeset: 1911:d1019a5c66d1 user: Ondrej Certik [EMAIL PROTECTED] date: Tue Nov 18 17:36:24 2008 +0100 description: Added tag sympy-0.6.3.beta2 for changeset e13f0bb3af7e diffs (8 lines): diff -r e13f0bb3af7e -r d1019a5c66d1

sympy: Do not test examples if they are not installed

details: http://hg.sympy.org/sympy/rev/5bd07d1abb07 changeset: 1906:5bd07d1abb07 user: Ondrej Certik [EMAIL PROTECTED] date: Tue Nov 18 17:07:53 2008 +0100 description: Do not test examples if they are not installed Previously, the examples directory was checked for code style.

Issue 1208 in sympy: improve bin/test to execute tests with decorators

Issue 1208: improve bin/test to execute tests with decorators http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1208 New issue report by ondrej.certik: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/repos/sympy$ bin/test sympy/mpmath/tests/test_linalg.py -k precision = test process starts

Issue 1204 in sympy: failing test: mpmath elliptic

Issue 1204: failing test: mpmath elliptic http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1204 Comment #6 by Vinzent.Steinberg: This is unittest related and not sympy's (or mpmath's) fault. But how can this happen? unittest is part of Python... Issue attribute updates: Status: WontFix

Issue 1204 in sympy: failing test: mpmath elliptic

Issue 1204: failing test: mpmath elliptic http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1204 Comment #8 by Vinzent.Steinberg: Nope. :( The critical section is the same: # Synonyms for assertion methods assertEqual = assertEquals = failUnlessEqual assertNotEqual =

Re: Implicit subs syntax like f(x=1, y=2)

On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 7:20 AM, Brian Granger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2. The other option I can think of is to define a new object type that has the __call__ logic (instead of putting into Basic). This might look like this: f = x*y g = SympyCallable(f, (x,y)) g(2,3) # becomes

[PATCH] install bin/test and bin/py.bench with ./setup.py sdist

But do not install them with ./setup.py install. This is important, because we don't want test and py.bench to end up in /usr/bin/. --- MANIFEST.in |2 ++ setup.py|2 +- 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) diff --git a/MANIFEST.in b/MANIFEST.in index 1908989..6a922b7

[PATCH] Do not test examples if they are not installed

Previously, the examples directory was checked for code style. However, when the user installs sympy using ./setup.py install, the examples are not installed (at least not in the parent directory of sympy), so the result is that sympy.test() fails. Now we only check the examples dir if it's

Re: [PATCH] Do not test examples if they are not installed

On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 3:14 PM, Ondrej Certik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Previously, the examples directory was checked for code style. However, when the user installs sympy using ./setup.py install, the examples are not installed (at least not in the parent directory of sympy), so the result

Re: Implicit subs syntax like f(x=1, y=2)

On 18 Nov., 07:20, Brian Granger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] f = x*y f.bindings = (x, y) f(2,3)    # f.bindings determines the order so this is f(x=2,y=3) This is really nice as it is explicit and allows you take complex expressions and quickly define an unambiguoug calling syntax

[PATCH] test_pure: install sympy first and then test using bin/test

Previously test_pure only did setup.py sdist and then tested using py.test. Now it does 1) ./setup.py sdist 2) unpacks the tarball 3) ./setup.py install 4) python -c import sympy; sympy.test() That way we test what actually gets installed on the user system. --- bin/test_pure |6

Re: Do not test examples if they are not installed

+1 Vinzent On 18 Nov., 15:26, Ondrej Certik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 3:14 PM, Ondrej Certik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Previously, the examples directory was checked for code style. However, when the user installs sympy using ./setup.py install, the examples are not

Re: Implicit subs syntax like f(x=1, y=2)

The only reason to not support this is if we thought that subs might later need to grow keyword arguments that control how subs itself works. We used to use **kwargs in this exact manner in IPython's parallel stuff. It ended up *killing* us because we eventually needed to have keyword

Re: Implicit subs syntax like f(x=1, y=2)

A new patch was submitted which includes suggestions from this thread. http://groups.google.com/group/sympy-patches/browse_thread/thread/83c33c0aa8560475 --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sympy-patches

[sympy] Re: sympy 0.6.3.beta1 released

On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 10:07 PM, Ondrej Certik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I just released the 0.6.3.beta1. This is a beta release for testing only. Please test it, there were quite a lot of changes since the last release, so I want to make sure all is ok. You can find the tarballs at:

[sympy] Re: Boolean Algebra

On Nov 18, 7:35 am, Brian Granger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * The is_* attributes were created so that the core code in sympy could have a fast path for checking the types of the objects that it gets.  I am assuming that performance tests were done and that there really was a net performance

[sympy] Re: sympy 0.6.3.beta1 released

I updated the issue. It seems to be related to the unittest module. Vinzent On 18 Nov., 15:28, Ondrej Certik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 10:07 PM, Ondrej Certik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I just released the 0.6.3.beta1. This is a beta release for testing only.

[sympy] sympy 0.6.3.beta2 released

Hi, 0.6.3.beta2 is out: http://code.google.com/p/sympy/downloads/list This is still for testing purposes. 0.6.3 is the first release where we install tests among the other files with python setup.py install. So please test it thoroughly. Whatever way you choose to install sympy, when you start

[sympy] Re: sympy 0.6.3.beta2 released

Cool. I've tested it in OS X with python2.4 + python2.5 and works fine. On Nov 18, 2008, at 5:45 PM, Ondrej Certik wrote: Hi, 0.6.3.beta2 is out: http://code.google.com/p/sympy/downloads/list This is still for testing purposes. 0.6.3 is the first release where we install tests among

[sympy] Re: bsd vs lgpl -- decision

On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 11:42:47PM +0100, Ondrej Certik wrote: Hi, thanks everyone for the discussion about the licences. After valuing all the arguments for and against LGPL, I am making a decisions, that: SymPy is going to stay *BSD* And as long as I am going to do all the releases

[sympy] Re: bsd vs lgpl -- decision

[Just a bit of history; I am explicitly abstaining on which license is best.] On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 4:19 PM, Kirill Smelkov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 11:42:47PM +0100, Ondrej Certik wrote: anyone can make any modification and do what he wants with it, including

[sympy] Re: bsd vs lgpl -- decision

On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 11:32 PM, Jim Jewett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [Just a bit of history; I am explicitly abstaining on which license is best.] On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 4:19 PM, Kirill Smelkov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 11:42:47PM +0100, Ondrej Certik wrote:

[sympy] Re: sympy 0.6.3.beta2 released

On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 4:40 AM, chu-ching huang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The test output in my linux, python2.6, is listed as followed: = test process starts == executable: /usr/bin/python (2.6.0-final-0)