Re: [PATCH] initial fcode implementation

Right now only f77. f95 is one of the future options I'm thinkng of. Feel free to open a ticket, but I won't forget it anyway. It is mainly a matter of proper line wrapping. cheers, Toon Ondrej Certik wrote: Thanks! Sorry for the late reply. Is this using f77, or f95 syntax? Ondrej On Fri

Re: B-splines and Piecewise branch for review

On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 11:41 PM, Brian Granger wrote: > Ondrej, > >> The tests seem to run fine. Only I'll try to rebase it, it will make >> it easier to review. There are some conflicts, that I'll try to fix. > > I am a little surprised there were conflicts.  I pulled from upstream > and resolve

Re: new patches

On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 11:30 PM, Toon Verstraelen wrote: > Ondrej Certik wrote: >> >> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 4:22 PM, Aaron S. Meurer >> wrote: >>> >>> I am testing your branch now.  I also left some comments on your github. >>> >>> Does the test_sage patch require sage to test?  If it does, I

Re: [PATCH] initial fcode implementation

On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 12:13 AM, Toon Verstraelen wrote: > Right now only f77. f95 is one of the future options I'm thinkng of. Feel > free to open a ticket, but I won't forget it anyway. It is mainly a matter > of proper line wrapping. Yes. f77 is fine, it should work in f95 too, doesn't it? O

Re: [PATCH] initial fcode implementation

Ondrej Certik wrote: On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 12:13 AM, Toon Verstraelen wrote: Right now only f77. f95 is one of the future options I'm thinkng of. Feel free to open a ticket, but I won't forget it anyway. It is mainly a matter of proper line wrapping. Yes. f77 is fine, it should work in f95

Re: B-splines and Piecewise branch for review

Ondrej, > I just don't like the way you resolved them.  Seems like you were > merging branches, which both contained some of your patches and in > general it was a big mess. I fixed all of that and pushed things here: Yes, I think I know what happened and I am not surprised that I made a mess. S

Re: B-splines and Piecewise branch for review

On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 9:34 AM, Brian Granger wrote: > Ondrej, > >> I just don't like the way you resolved them.  Seems like you were >> merging branches, which both contained some of your patches and in >> general it was a big mess. I fixed all of that and pushed things here: > > Yes, I think I

Re: B-splines and Piecewise branch for review

Thanks! On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Ondrej Certik wrote: > On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 9:34 AM, Brian Granger > wrote: >> Ondrej, >> >>> I just don't like the way you resolved them.  Seems like you were >>> merging branches, which both contained some of your patches and in >>> general it was

Re: [PATCH 2/2] Removing the option for passing in a list of pairs, since the outcome is ambiguous when two pairs are given as arguments.

2010/3/25 Christian Muise > Yeah, I also prefer branches, it's trivial to push and pull. The patch >> is +1 from me, I pushed it in. Thanks! > > > Woot! Thanks guys. > > I had a number of git questions, but all has been cleared up via IRC. > Next patch will be much smoother. > > Cheers > Di

Re: [PATCH 2/2] Removing the option for passing in a list of pairs, since the outcome is ambiguous when two pairs are given as arguments.

It did. The branch was the combination of the two patches that made it to this list with git-email, plus an extra test case that you had suggested. Cheers On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 6:20 PM, Vinzent Steinberg < vinzent.steinb...@googlemail.com> wrote: > 2010/3/25 Christian Muise > > Yeah, I also