Updates:
Labels: -NeedsReview PassedReview
Comment #23 on issue 1798 by Vinzent.Steinberg: Refactoring Basic
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1798
Great, I think this can go in as it is.
--
You received this message because you are listed in the owner
or CC fields of
Updates:
Status: Fixed
Comment #24 on issue 1798 by ondrej.certik: Refactoring Basic
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1798
This is in, thanks!
--
You received this message because you are listed in the owner
or CC fields of this issue, or because you starred this issue.
Comment #20 on issue 1798 by ronan.l...@gmail.com: Refactoring Basic
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1798
Expr is just a placeholder name so it would be nice to find a better
alternative.
I'm not really convinced by Term, however. It suggests that the class
represents
parts
Comment #21 on issue 1798 by Vinzent.Steinberg: Refactoring Basic
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1798
-if not hasattr(a,i):
+if not hasattr(a,i) or i in ['__dict__']:
Why was this change necessary? Please add the reason to the commit message.
Comment #22 on issue 1798 by ronan.l...@gmail.com: Refactoring Basic
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1798
Thanks, I had forgotten about this. There were test failures related to
pickling that
I didn't really understand. It turns out that many classes had gained a
__dict__
Comment #17 on issue 1798 by ronan.l...@gmail.com: Refactoring Basic
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1798
However, if we take seriously the idea that Basic doesn't do math I
think the
following methods should be moved to Expr as well:
__lt__, __gt__, __le__, __ge__ =
Issue 1798: Refactoring Basic
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1798
This issue is now blocking issue 1882.
See http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1882
--
You received this message because you are listed in the owner
or CC fields of this issue, or because you starred
Comment #18 on issue 1798 by ronan.l...@gmail.com: Refactoring Basic
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1798
expr.has_piecewise is actually equivalent to expr.has(Piecewise) so it's
easy to deal
with it, see issue 1882.
--
You received this message because you are listed in the
Comment #15 on issue 1798 by ellisonbg.net: Refactoring Basic
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1798
Initially I didn't like this idea of splitting Basic into Basic+Expr, but
after looking more I think it is a good idea.
In addition to removing the circular dependencies, it also
Comment #12 on issue 1798 by ronan.l...@gmail.com: Refactoring Basic
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1798
This needs to rebased on current master.
Indeed. I'm working on it but it's not trivial. I'm bogged down in a mess
of merges.
--
You received this message because you
Updates:
Labels: -NeedsBetterPatch NeedsReview
Comment #13 on issue 1798 by ronan.l...@gmail.com: Refactoring Basic
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1798
I've merged my branch with the latest master:
[http://github.com/rlamy/sympy/tree/Basic-split]. I hope the many merges
Updates:
Labels: -NeedsReview NeedsBetterPatch
Comment #11 on issue 1798 by Vinzent.Steinberg: Refactoring Basic
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1798
This needs to rebased on current master.
--
You received this message because you are listed in the owner
or CC fields
Comment #9 on issue 1798 by Vinzent.Steinberg: Refactoring Basic
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1798
You could describe the motivation (the reasoning you concluded with Fabian
to split
Basic to implement better assumptions) in the commit message. I think Ondrej
mentioned
Comment #10 on issue 1798 by Vinzent.Steinberg: Refactoring Basic
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1798
Looking at the last commit, it seems to be about making Assume() more
light-weight.
I'm +1 for the whole branch, only the motivation (besides removing circular
imports)
Comment #5 on issue 1798 by ronan.l...@gmail.com: Refactoring Basic
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1798
I've pushed a branch split_Basic_2 squashing the first 3 commits with an
expanded
commit message. No other change.
--
You received this message because you are listed in
Updates:
Labels: Milestone-Release0.7.0
Comment #6 on issue 1798 by ronan.l...@gmail.com: Refactoring Basic
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1798
I've pushed a branch split_Basic_pc2 squashing the first 3 commits with
an expanded
commit message. No other change.
--
Comment #4 on issue 1798 by asmeurer: Refactoring Basic
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1798
OK. So given a branch with better commit messages, I would consider this
+1.
--
You received this message because you are listed in the owner
or CC fields of this issue, or because
Comment #3 on issue 1798 by ronan.l...@gmail.com: Refactoring Basic
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1798
This looks good, except that maybe one of the commit messages should
explain the
reason for splitting Basic.
Yes, I'll make a new branch with better commit messages
Status: Accepted
Owner: ronan.l...@gmail.com
Labels: Type-Enhancement Priority-Medium NeedsReview
New issue 1798 by ronan.l...@gmail.com: Refactoring Basic
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1798
See
http://groups.google.com/group/sympy/browse_thread/thread/dd8ae7dfb5122d91
My
Comment #1 on issue 1798 by asmeurer: Refactoring Basic
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1798
This looks good, except that maybe one of the commit messages should
explain the reason for splitting Basic.
Also, do you think as_Poly should be moved to expr? And I think rewrite
20 matches
Mail list logo
