Re: Issue 2658 in sympy: Abi disable checking in solve()

2011-08-30 Thread sympy
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

Re: Issue 2389 in sympy: Semantic inconsistency between Basic.__contains__ and Tuple.__contains__

2011-08-30 Thread sympy
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

Re: Issue 2658 in sympy: Abi disable checking in solve()

2011-08-30 Thread sympy
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

Re: Issue 2658 in sympy: Abi disable checking in solve()

2011-08-30 Thread sympy
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

Re: Issue 2389 in sympy: Semantic inconsistency between Basic.__contains__ and Tuple.__contains__

2011-08-30 Thread sympy
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

Re: Issue 2116 in sympy: -LambertW(-1) is not real

2011-08-30 Thread sympy
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

Re: Issue 2574 in sympy: Wrong assumptions for LambertW(-1)

2011-08-30 Thread sympy
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

Re: Issue 2658 in sympy: Abi disable checking in solve()

2011-08-30 Thread sympy
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

Re: [sympy] Re: Printing large expressions

2011-08-30 Thread Aaron Meurer
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

[sympy] sympify with embedded strings ?

2011-08-30 Thread Roberto Colistete Jr.
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,