Updates:
Status: Fixed
Comment #3 on issue 2658 by smi...@gmail.com: Abi disable checking in
solve()
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2658
(No comment was entered for this change.)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Comment #9 on issue 2389 by nicolas@gmail.com: Semantic inconsistency
between Basic.__contains__ and Tuple.__contains__
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2389
I talked to Mateusz about this at SciPy, and he thinks, and I agree, that
a in b should be equivalent to a in
Updates:
Labels: -NeedsReview -smichr Documentation
Comment #5 on issue 2658 by asmeurer: Abi disable checking in solve()
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2658
(No comment was entered for this change.)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Updates:
Status: Accepted
Comment #4 on issue 2658 by asmeurer: Abi disable checking in solve()
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2658
if minimal=False then only the simplest of checking is done, but a check
flag has been added so all checking can be skipped.
This
Comment #10 on issue 2389 by asmeurer: Semantic inconsistency between
Basic.__contains__ and Tuple.__contains__
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2389
That's a good point. I agree then that we should remove __contains__,
except where it explicitly makes sense, like with
Updates:
Blockedon: 2574
Comment #5 on issue 2116 by nicolas@gmail.com: -LambertW(-1) is not real
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2116
(No comment was entered for this change.)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Issue 2574: Wrong assumptions for LambertW(-1)
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2574
This issue is now blocking issue 2116.
See http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2116
--
You received this message because you are listed in the owner
or CC fields of this issue, or
Updates:
Status: Accepted
Comment #4 on issue 2658 by asmeurer: Abi disable checking in solve()
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2658
if minimal=False then only the simplest of checking is done, but a check
flag has been added so all checking can be skipped.
This
Actually, if I understand the implementation correctly, order=None
should give the same ordering, at least on the same machine, for the
exact same expression. That's because it uses the order of the args,
which are ordered by hash.
I would still add the order='none' option, though, as it may be
Hi,
I was using SymPy 0.6.7 (on Ubuntu, etc) and now I have installed
version 0.7.1.
Until SymPy v0.6.7, the following was working well :
sympify(u'Limit(sin(x),x,0,dir=\-\)')
But with SymPy 0.7.0 or 0.7.1, it gives
SympifyError: SympifyError: 'could not parse u\'Limit(sin(x),x,
10 matches
Mail list logo