Re: Issue 1766 in sympy: expand(power_base=True) is too aggressive

Updates: Labels: -NeedsBetterPatch NeedsReview Comment #14 on issue 1766 by smichr: expand(power_base=True) is too aggressive http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1766 Forced update fixing doctest is available again in the same branch, 1766. -- You received this message

Re: Issue 1774 in sympy: Invalid link url in geometry documentation

Comment #1 on issue 1774 by smichr: Invalid link url in geometry documentation http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1774 I just clicked through without problem...did someone make a change? The url I found (that worked) was

Re: Issue 1766 in sympy: expand(power_base=True) is too aggressive

Comment #15 on issue 1766 by Vinzent.Steinberg: expand(power_base=True) is too aggressive http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1766 Thanks, looks fine now. Only the 'if not funcs: return' line seems pointless to me, as it does not work apparently. Do you think this should still

Re: Issue 1250 in sympy: incorrect output at sympy.latex()

Updates: Status: Fixed Comment #5 on issue 1250 by Vinzent.Steinberg: incorrect output at sympy.latex() http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1250 I think this is fixed. -- You received this message because you are listed in the owner or CC fields of this issue, or because

Re: Issue 1374 in sympy: simplify(x**2-x**2.0) does not yield 0.

Comment #16 on issue 1374 by Vinzent.Steinberg: simplify(x**2-x**2.0) does not yield 0. http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1374 I think simplify(x**2-x**2.0) should not be 0. -- You received this message because you are listed in the owner or CC fields of this issue, or because

Re: Issue 1770 in sympy: runtests could be more conservative in printing

Updates: Cc: asmeurer Comment #3 on issue 1770 by smichr: runtests could be more conservative in printing http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1770 Only those files that have tests are reported. The printout could be pruned further in that only those with failing doctests

Re: Issue 1264 in sympy: Discrepancies between running the full test suite and individual tests

Updates: Cc: asmeurer Ronan.Lamy Comment #9 on issue 1264 by smichr: Discrepancies between running the full test suite and individual tests http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1264 Is this perhaps a mute point? Issue 1263 tests (which are part of the patch cited above)

Re: Issue 1770 in sympy: runtests could be more conservative in printing

Comment #4 on issue 1770 by smichr: runtests could be more conservative in printing http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1770 Vinzent wrote: Thanks, looks fine now. Only the 'if not funcs: return' line seems pointless to me, as it does not work apparently. Do you think this

Re: Issue 1766 in sympy: expand(power_base=True) is too aggressive

Updates: Cc: Vinzent.Steinberg Comment #16 on issue 1766 by smichr: expand(power_base=True) is too aggressive http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1766 The change to separate had one of the power flags False and it should be true. This is being fixed, tests re-run and a

Issue 1776 in sympy: coverage is misreporting

Status: Accepted Owner: smichr Labels: Type-Defect Priority-Medium New issue 1776 by smichr: coverage is misreporting http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1776 I added some tests for extract_multiplicatively, ran the coverage on core, checked the results, and this test,

Re: Issue 1770 in sympy: runtests could be more conservative in printing

Updates: Labels: -NeedsBetterPatch NeedsReview Comment #5 on issue 1770 by smichr: runtests could be more conservative in printing http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1770 (No comment was entered for this change.) -- You received this message because you are listed in the

Re: Issue 1766 in sympy: expand(power_base=True) is too aggressive

Comment #17 on issue 1766 by smichr: expand(power_base=True) is too aggressive http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1766 ok, these changes have been made and the revision is in the forced update of smichr's branch 1766 at github. -- You received this message because you are

Re: Issue 1774 in sympy: Invalid link url in geometry documentation

Comment #2 on issue 1774 by asmeurer: Invalid link url in geometry documentation http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1774 I could very likely have been down before. Our MediaWiki wiki server is sporadic. -- You received this message because you are listed in the owner or CC

Re: Issue 1264 in sympy: Discrepancies between running the full test suite and individual tests

Comment #10 on issue 1264 by asmeurer: Discrepancies between running the full test suite and individual tests http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1264 I think he needs to change his Google Code or Google Account preferences to change that. At any rate, there doesn't seem to be a

Re: Issue 1774 in sympy: Invalid link url in geometry documentation

Comment #3 on issue 1774 by julien.duponchelle: Invalid link url in geometry documentation http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1774 I think link need to be: http://docs.sympy.org/modules/plotting.html#plotting-geometric-entities -- You received this message because you are listed

Re: Issue 1774 in sympy: Invalid link url in geometry documentation

Comment #4 on issue 1774 by smichr: Invalid link url in geometry documentation http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1774 Here's what it is (and this works for me) http://wiki.sympy.org/wiki/Plotting_Module#Plotting_Geometric_Entities And here's what julien is asking for (which also

Issue 1777 in sympy: powsimp modifications

Status: Accepted Owner: smichr Labels: Type-Defect Priority-Medium New issue 1777 by smichr: powsimp modifications http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1777 from sympy import * var('x y z') (x, y, z) Unless the x is a literal, it would be nice to have the 2 on the outside of this

Re: Issue 1776 in sympy: coverage is misreporting

Comment #1 on issue 1776 by Vinzent.Steinberg: coverage is misreporting http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1776 This code is unecessarily deeply nested. You could do everything using one or two if-blocks. -- You received this message because you are listed in the owner or CC

Re: Issue 1776 in sympy: coverage is misreporting

Comment #2 on issue 1776 by smichr: coverage is misreporting http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1776 That's another issue (unless you are saying that coverage cannot detect deep indentation). I tried unindenting it as much as possible, but it still shows as red/uncovered:

Re: Issue 1777 in sympy: powsimp modifications

Comment #1 on issue 1777 by asmeurer: powsimp modifications http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1777 It seems like powsimp should simplify x**y**z to x**(y*z) (under proper assumptions), not the reverse. Your version seems more like something that expands the expression and should

Issue 1778 in sympy: Rational from string can be improved

Status: Accepted Owner: smichr Labels: Type-Defect Priority-Medium New issue 1778 by smichr: Rational from string can be improved http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1778 There are some difficulties with instantiating Rationals from strings due to insufficient massaging of the input

Re: Issue 1778 in sympy: Rational from string can be improved

Updates: Cc: asmeurer Vinzent.Steinberg Labels: NeedsReview Comment #1 on issue 1778 by smichr: Rational from string can be improved http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1778 This can be reviewed as commit 1778 in smichr's 1766 branch at github. -- You received this

Re: Issue 1770 in sympy: runtests could be more conservative in printing

Comment #6 on issue 1770 by smichr: runtests could be more conservative in printing http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1770 A correction has been pushed again. -- You received this message because you are listed in the owner or CC fields of this issue, or because you starred this

Re: Issue 1778 in sympy: Rational from string can be improved

Comment #2 on issue 1778 by asmeurer: Rational from string can be improved http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1778 I don't see that commit, but maybe I am looking too soon. Nonetheless, I think the supported method of converting a string to a SymPy expression is through the

[sympy] Re: releasing 0.6.6

On Dec 20, 3:54 am, Aaron S. Meurer asmeu...@gmail.com wrote: Everything including the docs works for me in Mac OS X 10.6.2.  It installed fine, the isympy shortcut works in my path, and the tests all pass.   To David: I have sphinx installed through fink, which I think is a requirement for

[sympy] [Ann] SymPy 0.6.6 released

Hi all, we just released a new version of SymPy, get it here [0]. Many things got changed, including: * many documentation improvements, including docstrings and doctests * new assumptions system (GSoC) (See assumptions documentation for more information or have a look at Fabian's blog

[sympy] a patch to examples/intermediate/mplot3d.py

Hi all, As title, this is a patch for matplotlib used in Sympy: @@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ try: import pylab as p -import matplotlib.axes3d as p3 +import mpl_toolkits.mplot3d as p3 except ImportError: raise ImportError(Matplotlib is required to use mplot3d.)

Re: [sympy] a patch to examples/intermediate/mplot3d.py

I can verify that it doesn't work before this patch and that it works afterwords on Mac OS X 10.6 with matplotlib installed via fink (0.99.0). I'd like further verification first though, as I am not too familiar with matplotlib. Thanks for the patch. Just for the future, it is much easier to