The patch looks fine to me, however I'm not familiar with fortran. But
no one objected so far, so I pushed it in, thanks.
Vinzent
2010/2/24 Toon Verstraelen :
> ---
> doc/src/modules/printing.txt | 96 +++
> sympy/__init__.py | 2 +-
> sympy/printing/__init__.
This is in, thank you!
Vinzent
2010/2/23 Øyvind Jensen :
> Before, 'refine_Pow' would simplify (-1)**exp only if 'exp' as a whole could
> be determined as even or odd. A doctest like,
>
> >>> refine_Pow((-1)**(x+y), Assume(x, Q.even))
> (-1)**y
>
> would fail. This patch fixes tha
Thank you, I pushed it in.
Fabian, if you have any objections, we can make another patch.
Vinzent
2010/2/23 Øyvind Jensen :
> An exception could be raised as a false positive. We should only
> demand consistency between two resolutors if they have both reached a
> conclusion. Before this patch
Thanks alot!
Vinzent Steinberg wrote:
The patch looks fine to me, however I'm not familiar with fortran. But
no one objected so far, so I pushed it in, thanks.
Vinzent
2010/2/24 Toon Verstraelen :
---
doc/src/modules/printing.txt | 96 +++
sympy/__init__.py |
What is the motivation of this? It would be nice if you could add this
to the commit message.
'Implies(x, y)' is clearly less readable than 'Or(Not(x), y)', imho.
Fabian, what is your opinion about this?
Vinzent
2010/3/17 Christian Muise :
> ---
> doc/src/modules/logic.txt | 7 --
2010/3/17 Christian Muise :
> ---
> sympy/logic/boolalg.py | 6 ++
> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/sympy/logic/boolalg.py b/sympy/logic/boolalg.py
> index 0a45e42..97c47b7 100755
> --- a/sympy/logic/boolalg.py
> +++ b/sympy/logic/boolalg.py
> @@ -109,10 +
Looking at the implementation of Xor, Nand, Nor, and Not classes, it
appears that the aim is to maintain formulas in negation normal form (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negation_normal_form ). This would imply
(excuse the pun ;)) that the Implies class should do the same.
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at
Not sure what such a test would look like...other oddities are left
unhandled such as Not(). What's the policy for sympy on testing thrown
errors?
Cheers
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 4:53 PM, Vinzent Steinberg <
vinzent.steinb...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> 2010/3/17 Christian Muise :
> > ---
> > sym
We have the raises() helper function, look in the tests for it. See for example:
x = Symbol('x')
raises(TypeError, "len(x)")
It usually makes sense to have a test that proves your patch actually
works. Here you could for example add a test that would lead without
your patch to an "ambiguo
2010/3/19 Christian Muise :
> Looking at the implementation of Xor, Nand, Nor, and Not classes, it
> appears that the aim is to maintain formulas in negation normal form (
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negation_normal_form ). This would imply
> (excuse the pun ;)) that the Implies class should d
>
> I see, so I'm +1 on this patch.
>
Probably best to still get Fabian's input -- I haven't contributed to
sympy before now so there may be some "bigger picture" issues that I'm
failing to see.
> Is there an advantage of having all in negation normal form?
>
For querying the theory? Not un
Hi,
please review my 2 patches in "pu" branch at github:
* ee232d5 (HEAD, github/pu, pu) atan2(y, x) can now be converted to/from Sage
* 17806ba test_sage: Use S() instead of sympify()
Thanks,
Ondrej
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sympy-patches"
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 7:01 PM, Ondrej Certik wrote:
> Hi,
>
> please review my 2 patches in "pu" branch at github:
>
> * ee232d5 (HEAD, github/pu, pu) atan2(y, x) can now be converted to/from Sage
> * 17806ba test_sage: Use S() instead of sympify()
please review also these patches in the same b
Hi,
There is one warning remaining about a method in the pretty printing
code that does not seem to be used anymore. I'm not sure how to handle
it. The rest was trivial to fix.
The audit also revealed a bug in mathml. It is fixed in this patch and a
corresponding test is added.
Audit is re
14 matches
Mail list logo