Comment #13 on issue 1717 by ronan.l...@gmail.com: inconsistency between
facts
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1717
Issue 1051 has been merged into this issue.
--
You received this message because you are listed in the owner
or CC fields of this issue, or because you starred
Updates:
Status: Fixed
Comment #12 on issue 1717 by Vinzent.Steinberg: inconsistency between facts
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1717
Fixed, see issue 1723.
--
You received this message because you are listed in the owner
or CC fields of this issue, or because you
Updates:
Cc: fab...@fseoane.net
Labels: Assumptions
Comment #9 on issue 1717 by Vinzent.Steinberg: inconsistency between facts
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1717
it seems actually quite difficult to
prevent None values to enter new_facts as I suggested in #3.
Comment #10 on issue 1717 by ronan.l...@gmail.com: inconsistency between
facts
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1717
In FactRules.deduce_all_facts, new_facts is initialised to base, and base
can have
None values. So, merely preventing the addition of None inside this method
Issue 1717: inconsistency between facts
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1717
This issue is now blocking issue 1723.
See http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1723
--
You received this message because you are listed in the owner
or CC fields of this issue, or because you
Comment #6 on issue 1717 by nicolas.pourcelot: inconsistency between facts
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1717
BTW, 'not is None' is more efficient than '!= None'.
I think you mean 'is not None'.
How is not is None faster than != None? This is interesting to me.
As far as I
Comment #7 on issue 1717 by Vinzent.Steinberg: inconsistency between facts
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1717
In [16]: %timeit a is None
1000 loops, best of 3: 63 ns per loop
In [17]: %timeit a == None
1000 loops, best of 3: 93.3 ns per loop
This is because is just
Comment #8 on issue 1717 by ronan.l...@gmail.com: inconsistency between
facts
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1717
The difference does matter if there's a non-trivial .__eq__() (NB: it's not
the case
here). For instance:
In [1]: a = Symbol('a')
In [2]: %timeit a == None
1
Updates:
Status: Started
Comment #4 on issue 1717 by Vinzent.Steinberg: inconsistency between facts
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1717
This is anyway the old assumptions system, so we can just get in this fix.
Could you
please add a test case or do you think it's not
Comment #5 on issue 1717 by asmeurer: inconsistency between facts
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1717
How is not is None faster than != None? This is interesting to me.
--
You received this message because you are listed in the owner
or CC fields of this issue, or because you
Updates:
Cc: asmeurer ondrej.certik
Labels: NeedsReview
Comment #2 on issue 1717 by smichr: inconsistency between facts
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1717
A test is being done in facts to see if a value should be added for a
quantity once
something is known
11 matches
Mail list logo
