On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 4:51 PM, Ronan Lamy wrote:
> Le mardi 06 juillet 2010 à 11:19 -0700, Ondrej Certik a écrit :
>> Yeah, that's right. It's still faster though:
>
> OK, then I guess using expr.func(*some_list) instead of
> expr.new(*some_list) helps. We could probably even gain a bit more by
>
I'm new to Sympy, and I was wondering if there was anyway to find
integer solutions to multivariable polynomials. An example of this
polynomial would be 4x^2 + y^2 - 17 = 0 , or 4*x**2 + y**2 - 17 = 0 if
you prefer sympy notation. The integer solutions to this polynomial
are (2,1), (-2,1), (2,-1),
I hadn't used the code comments in github before. They look nice and
may be easier for others to use rather than depend on the SmartBear
software. The only downside is it is there isn't as good an interface
for saying what the defects are, showing the updated code for those
defects, and providing
Well, Safari just shows me that there is an RSS feed associated with
github.com. I think you can also get to it by clicking on the "News Feed"
button at the top right of github.com when you are logged in. It shows updates
for my repositories as well as all repositories/people that I am watchin
See also this (somewhat old) thread:
http://groups.google.com/group/sympy/browse_thread/thread/b0103e9ce1301440#
As far as triviality of the support, I guess we could keep rewriting the Python
2.5+ functions in iterables.py (so far we have four), but as soon as we get the
assumptions system to
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 4:07 PM, Kevin Hunter wrote:
> At 4:54pm -0600 Tue, 06 Jul 2010, Aaron S. Meurer wrote:
> > Or 3. Dump Python 2.4 and get rid of that function. :)
>
> Right on.
>
> I'm in the middle of trying to resurrect support for Python 2.4 right
> now for a project. It's a pain, and
Le mardi 06 juillet 2010 à 11:19 -0700, Ondrej Certik a écrit :
> Yeah, that's right. It's still faster though:
OK, then I guess using expr.func(*some_list) instead of
expr.new(*some_list) helps. We could probably even gain a bit more by
having a Basic.from_iterable classmethod and doing
expr.from
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 4:07 PM, Kevin Hunter wrote:
> At 4:54pm -0600 Tue, 06 Jul 2010, Aaron S. Meurer wrote:
>> Or 3. Dump Python 2.4 and get rid of that function. :)
>
> Right on.
>
> I'm in the middle of trying to resurrect support for Python 2.4 right
> now for a project. It's a pain, and fr
> I tested with python 2.4 and 2.7rc2 (with -3).
FYI, 2.7 was released on Saturday! Yay!
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sympy" group.
To post to this group, send email to sy...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
sympy
My previous post notwithstanding, you could also use the inspect
class, available since Python v2.1: http://docs.python.org/library/inspect.html
. I believe isfunction is what you want.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sympy" group.
To post to this g
At 4:54pm -0600 Tue, 06 Jul 2010, Aaron S. Meurer wrote:
> Or 3. Dump Python 2.4 and get rid of that function. :)
Right on.
I'm in the middle of trying to resurrect support for Python 2.4 right
now for a project. It's a pain, and frankly, I think my boss is on the
wrong track. Python 2.4 was la
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 4:02 PM, Aaron S. Meurer wrote:
> For what it's worth, I prefer the GitHub comments system, both because it has
> a much nicer interface, but also because it links right in with the
> repository that I push to and watch via RSS feed.
How do you watch it using the RSS feed
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 11:59 AM, James Pearson
wrote:
> Well, I guess we *don't* actually want all callables, since that causes some
> issues with classes that have __call__ defined. http://dpaste.com/215213/ .
> Bummer.
Too bad.
>
> Here is the patch for option 2:
> http://github.com/xiongchiam
For what it's worth, I prefer the GitHub comments system, both because it has a
much nicer interface, but also because it links right in with the repository
that I push to and watch via RSS feed.
Aaron Meurer
On Jul 6, 2010, at 1:29 PM, Andy Ray Terrel wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> Øyvind's fortra
Or 3. Dump Python 2.4 and get rid of that function. :)
Aaron Meurer
On Jul 6, 2010, at 1:26 PM, James Pearson wrote:
> On line 54 of utilities/iterables.py [0], we check to see if a variable is a
> lambda by checking the __str__ value, which is a bit bad. I see two other
> options:
>
> 1. C
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 3:25 PM, Andy Ray Terrel wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 4:02 PM, Andy Ray Terrel wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 2:33 PM, Ronan Lamy wrote:
>>> Le mardi 06 juillet 2010 à 13:29 -0500, Andy Ray Terrel a écrit :
Hello all,
Øyvind's fortran code branch is rea
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 4:02 PM, Andy Ray Terrel wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 2:33 PM, Ronan Lamy wrote:
>> Le mardi 06 juillet 2010 à 13:29 -0500, Andy Ray Terrel a écrit :
>>> Hello all,
>>>
>>> Øyvind's fortran code branch is ready to go in, but I did the review
>>> through the SmartBear cod
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 2:33 PM, Ronan Lamy wrote:
> Le mardi 06 juillet 2010 à 13:29 -0500, Andy Ray Terrel a écrit :
>> Hello all,
>>
>> Øyvind's fortran code branch is ready to go in, but I did the review
>> through the SmartBear code collaboration server. I will write up how
>> to use the serv
Le mardi 06 juillet 2010 à 13:29 -0500, Andy Ray Terrel a écrit :
> Hello all,
>
> Øyvind's fortran code branch is ready to go in, but I did the review
> through the SmartBear code collaboration server. I will write up how
> to use the server in more detail later but for people who would like
> t
Well, I guess we *don't* actually want all callables, since that causes some
issues with classes that have __call__ defined. http://dpaste.com/215213/ .
Bummer.
Here is the patch for option 2:
http://github.com/xiongchiamiov/sympy/compare/tempfix . I tested with
python 2.4 and 2.7rc2 (with -3).
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 11:26 AM, James Pearson
wrote:
> On line 54 of utilities/iterables.py [0], we check to see if a variable is a
> lambda by checking the __str__ value, which is a bit bad. I see two other
> options:
>
> 1. Check to see if rv is callable. The builtin callable() was removed i
Hello all,
Øyvind's fortran code branch is ready to go in, but I did the review
through the SmartBear code collaboration server. I will write up how
to use the server in more detail later but for people who would like
to view the review below is how. Øyvind's branch can be found at [0].
Sorry w
On line 54 of utilities/iterables.py [0], we check to see if a variable is a
lambda by checking the __str__ value, which is a bit bad. I see two other
options:
1. Check to see if rv is callable. The builtin callable() was removed in
Py3k, but 2to3 will replace it with the appropriate check agai
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 11:09 AM, Ronan Lamy wrote:
> Le mardi 06 juillet 2010 à 09:27 -0700, certik1 a écrit :
>> Hi,
>>
>> Christian has done a really awesome job and made almost all tests pass
>> in his remove assumptions branch, and I have squashed my commits a
>> little bit:
>>
>> git://github
Le mardi 06 juillet 2010 à 09:27 -0700, certik1 a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> Christian has done a really awesome job and made almost all tests pass
> in his remove assumptions branch, and I have squashed my commits a
> little bit:
>
> git://github.com/certik/sympy.git remove_assumptions
>
> I did some
Hi,
Christian has done a really awesome job and made almost all tests pass
in his remove assumptions branch, and I have squashed my commits a
little bit:
git://github.com/certik/sympy.git remove_assumptions
I did some tests and so far it got faster (!) for simple arithmetics (as
I hoped). T
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 4:12 AM, Øyvind Jensen wrote:
> >From a hijacked thread in sympy-patches:
>
> ma., 05.07.2010 kl. 14.04 -0700, skrev Brian Granger:
>> On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 1:28 PM, Ronan Lamy wrote:
>> > Le lundi 05 juillet 2010 à 19:17 +0200, Øyvind Jensen a écrit :
>> >> > Yep. I just
>From a hijacked thread in sympy-patches:
ma., 05.07.2010 kl. 14.04 -0700, skrev Brian Granger:
> On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 1:28 PM, Ronan Lamy wrote:
> > Le lundi 05 juillet 2010 à 19:17 +0200, Øyvind Jensen a écrit :
> >> > Yep. I just got back from SciPy and I talked a lot with one of the
> >> >
28 matches
Mail list logo
