Thanks for the reply.
On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 10:08:55 PM UTC+5:30, Aaron Meurer wrote:
>
> I'd be curious to hear from other organizations if such projects have
> been successful.
>
> I'll try to find out if such projects were successful.
> I'm mainly worried that if we put such an i
I can also act as a backup mentor and help review applications.
On 18 February 2016 at 08:57, Jason Moore wrote:
> Ok great! Thanks for the work on that.
>
>
> Jason
> moorepants.info
> +01 530-601-9791
>
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 5:22 PM, Aaron Meurer wrote:
>
>> Ondrej and I rewrote the SymPy
Ok great! Thanks for the work on that.
Jason
moorepants.info
+01 530-601-9791
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 5:22 PM, Aaron Meurer wrote:
> Ondrej and I rewrote the SymPy application from scratch. We had to do this
> anyway, because the questions are different, and have pretty low character
> limits
Ondrej and I rewrote the SymPy application from scratch. We had to do this
anyway, because the questions are different, and have pretty low character
limits this year.
Aaron Meurer
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 7:00 PM, Jason Moore wrote:
> I plan to work on the PyDy and SymPy stuff tomorrow and Frid
I plan to work on the PyDy and SymPy stuff tomorrow and Friday. I think we
really need to give our applications a makeover if we want to get selected
(as mentioned about the ideas page). Does anyone agree with that? I have
worries that we won't be selected again.
Jason
moorepants.info
+01 530-601
Ondrej and I have filled out the org application. The responses are here
https://github.com/sympy/sympy/wiki/GSoC-2016-Organization-Application. If
you want to edit it, the deadline is Friday, so we can still change it, but
let me know if you do, so I can edit the form on Google's site.
We will fi
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 5:01 PM, Francesco Bonazzi
wrote:
>
>
> On Wednesday, 17 February 2016 22:33:18 UTC+1, Aaron Meurer wrote:
>>
>>
>> My idea is to have a BigNumber wrapper, which pulls assumptions from
>> its arguments automatically. BigNumber(10).is_positive would be True.
>> But importan
On Wednesday, 17 February 2016 22:33:18 UTC+1, Aaron Meurer wrote:
>
>
> My idea is to have a BigNumber wrapper, which pulls assumptions from
> its arguments automatically. BigNumber(10).is_positive would be True.
> But importantly, BigNumber(10).is_number would be False, and
> BigNumber(10).e
I think this object would be useful, but not necessarily for the sort
of things suggested in this thread.
This would be useful for most of the common use-cases today of people
using evaluate=False, which usually amounts to making an expression
look a specific way, or keeping some numbers from comb
As an example:
class Unevaluated(Expr):
def __new__(cls, wrapped_type, *args, **kwargs):
obj = Expr.__new__(cls, *args, **kwargs)
obj._wrapped_type = wrapped_type
kwargs["evaluate"] = False
obj._wrapped_object = wrapped_type(*
On Wednesday, 17 February 2016 19:45:57 UTC+1, Aaron Meurer wrote:
>
>
> But func isn't the only way an evaluation might happen. An algorithm
> might try to pull apart the expression and use the terms in different
> ways (for example, an algorithm that does the transformation a**x*a**y
> -> a*
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 1:38 PM, Francesco Bonazzi
wrote:
>
>
> On Tuesday, 16 February 2016 23:59:56 UTC+1, Aaron Meurer wrote:
>>
>> Take for instance the googolplex, 10**10**100. You can represent this
>> already
>> using Pow(10, Pow(10, 100, evaluate=False), evaluate=False). But there
>> are t
On Tuesday, 16 February 2016 23:59:56 UTC+1, Aaron Meurer wrote:
>
> Take for instance the googolplex, 10**10**100. You can represent this
> already
> using Pow(10, Pow(10, 100, evaluate=False), evaluate=False). But there
> are two issues with this. First is that evaluate=False is very
> frag
13 matches
Mail list logo
