Status: Accepted
Owner: smichr
Labels: Type-Defect Priority-Medium NeedsReview
New issue 2080 by smichr: WildFunction needs to reference Dummy.dummycount
not Symbol.dummycount
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2080
tiny patch at github/smichr/2080
--
You received this message
Comment #146 on issue 1694 by smichr: solve has many issues with fractions
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1694
I'm trying to complete coverage tests for powdenest in 1694 and the current
work is in 1694cov; I think everything is looking ok. Personally, I don't
li
Comment #147 on issue 1694 by nicolas.pourcelot: solve has many issues with
fractions
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1694
Thanks Chris.
That's a detail, but I think powdenest() arguments should be renamed to
match those of similar existing functions :
logcombine
Updates:
Status: Accepted
Labels: crisjss NeedsReview
Comment #3 on issue 345 by asmeurer: implement _sage_ methods
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=345
(No comment was entered for this change.)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Comment #4 on issue 345 by ondrej.certik: implement _sage_ methods
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=345
Cristóvão, can you please send us a pull request to the sympy/sympy repo at
github? Implement the _sage_ method and add test to
sympy/test_external/test_sage.py.
--
You
Comment #5 on issue 345 by ondrej.certik: implement _sage_ methods
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=345
See here for more info:
http://sympy.org/development.html
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sympy-patches" group.
To po
Comment #148 on issue 1694 by smichr: solve has many issues with fractions
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1694
yes, they should be made the same. Since to be positive is to be real I
think the assume_pos_real can just be shortened to assume_postive:
h[1] >>&g
Comment #149 on issue 1694 by nicolas.pourcelot: solve has many issues with
fractions
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1694
+1
Let's change it to
logcombine(expr, assume_positive=False)
and
powdenest(expr, assume_positive=False)
(I prefer 'expr' than '
Comment #6 on issue 345 by crisjss: implement _sage_ methods
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=345
OK, I'll do it as soon as possible.
Thanks a lot.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sympy-patches" group.
To post to t
Comment #150 on issue 1694 by asmeurer: solve has many issues with fractions
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1694
No, that is wrong. The positive and real are referring to different
things. For a*log(x) == log(x**a) to be correct, a must be real, but for
log(x) + log(y) to
Comment #151 on issue 1694 by nicolas.pourcelot: solve has many issues with
fractions
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1694
So, "all symbols are positive" is a sufficient condition (while not
necessary).
I mean, if 'a', 'x' and 'y'
Comment #152 on issue 1694 by asmeurer: solve has many issues with fractions
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1694
Well, if you look at the code for logcombine(), it is specifically checking
for positive/real terms.
I think I already suggested renaming it to algebraic=True
Comment #153 on issue 1694 by smichr: solve has many issues with fractions
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1694
I think in t2 I eventually called it "symbolic" since that's how you've
referred to it elsewhere. But everything is symbolic so that's proba
Comment #154 on issue 1694 by smichr: solve has many issues with fractions
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1694
'lax' rolls off the fingers pretty nicely and has the definition "lacking
in rigor or strictness". How about that?
--
You received this mes
Comment #155 on issue 1694 by nicolas.pourcelot: solve has many issues with
fractions
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1694
As a non-native English speaker, I would say that 'force' is a (much?) more
common word (I didn't know what 'lax' means befor
Comment #156 on issue 1694 by Vinzent.Steinberg: solve has many issues with
fractions
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1694
'lax' is also a german word, meaning essentially the same as in English.
It's somewhat uncommon though. I'd prefer 'force
Status: Started
Owner: nicolas.pourcelot
CC: ondrej.certik
Labels: Type-Enhancement Priority-Medium NeedsReview
New issue 2086 by nicolas.pourcelot: SympifyError should be more explicit
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2086
When a SympifyError occurs inside a program, the message
Updates:
Labels: nicolas.pourcelot
Comment #1 on issue 2086 by asmeurer: SympifyError should be more explicit
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2086
(No comment was entered for this change.)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Updates:
Status: Fixed
Labels: -NeedsReview -nicolas.pourcelot PassedReview
Comment #2 on issue 2086 by asmeurer: SympifyError should be more explicit
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2086
It's in.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed t
Comment #3 on issue 2086 by smichr: SympifyError should be more explicit
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2086
When things get pushed in so quickly there's no time for feedback. Is there
a reason to show what it eventually got translated to instead of the
original expre
Comment #4 on issue 2086 by asmeurer: SympifyError should be more explicit
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2086
I don't think it works that way. If it fails, it fails, without any
mention of why. Or am I wrong?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed t
Comment #5 on issue 2086 by nicolas.pourcelot: SympifyError should be more
explicit
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2086
"When things get pushed in so quickly there's no time for feedback."
From http://code.google.com/p/sympy/wiki/SympyDevelopment:
"We
Comment #6 on issue 2086 by Vinzent.Steinberg: SympifyError should be more
explicit
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2086
I agree with Nicolas. There is an unwritten rule that you usually wait 24
hours before pushing in non-trivial changes, but this does not apply to
Comment #7 on issue 2086 by asmeurer: SympifyError should be more explicit
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2086
Well, the reason that I pushed it in so soon was that I had 10 minutes free
and I knew that I could review and push this simple patch in that time. If
I had
Comment #4 on issue 1942 by ronan.l...@gmail.com: Refactor the singleton
mechanism
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1942
I had the wrong idea earlier. Being a Singleton is clearly a property of
the class, not of the instance: S.One should behave the same whether it
Comment #14 on issue 2009 by torstenm...@googlemail.com: Document why
solve((x-y,y),x) is None
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2009
Sorry for the answer taking so much time. An iterable for multiple
variables would use the ordering given the silverstone call.
Could you
Comment #9 on issue 2014 by torstenm...@googlemail.com:
sympy.solvers.solvers.solve should also allow frozenset to hold equations
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2014
As no one disagreed, I prepare a combined patch for allowing all iterables
and removing TypeError for the
Comment #15 on issue 2009 by torstenm...@googlemail.com: Document why
solve((x-y,y),x) is None
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2009
Rebased patch to current origin master.
Attachments:
2009.diff 1.1 KB
2009.test 23.7 KB
--
You received this message because
Comment #10 on issue 2014 by torstenm...@googlemail.com:
sympy.solvers.solvers.solve should also allow frozenset to hold equations
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2014
ChangeLog:
- Rebased patch to current origin master
- Converted doctests to regular tesets
- Removed "
Comment #16 on issue 2009 by asmeurer: Document why solve((x-y,y),x) is None
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2009
What is silverstone? I think I understand what you are saying, and if so,
I would prefer a dictionary ({variable:solution}).
Here is the roots style:
In [47
Updates:
Labels: -NeedsBetterPatch NeedsReview torstenmarcoknodt
Comment #11 on issue 2014 by asmeurer: sympy.solvers.solvers.solve should
also allow frozenset to hold equations
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2014
(No comment was entered for this change.)
--
You
Comment #17 on issue 2009 by torstenm...@googlemail.com: Document why
solve((x-y,y),x) is None
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2009
Sorry, for the "silverstone". It was a greeting from the T9 on my cell
phone.
An iterable for multiple variables would use th
Comment #12 on issue 2014 by smichr: sympy.solvers.solvers.solve should
also allow frozenset to hold equations
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2014
I'm +1/2 with comments below. I have often thought that listing all
iterable types was kind of a clunky way to tes
Updates:
Labels: NeedsReview smichr
Blockedon: -2096
Comment #4 on issue 2084 by smichr: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-') fails
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2084
Please consider the following branch which has a minor modification of
limit that gives t
Comment #25 on issue 1923 by smichr: count_ops doesn't return a count (by
default)
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1923
A pull request for the 1923 (not 1694) portion of this issue has been made.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google G
Updates:
Labels: smichr
Comment #1 on issue 2080 by smichr: WildFunction needs to reference
Dummy.dummycount not Symbol.dummycount
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2080
A pull request has now been made for this issue. It's a very short patch
and quick r
Updates:
Labels: NeedsReview smichr
Comment #1 on issue 2095 by smichr: Ana Flores solution for quartic
equation is broken
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2095
A pull request has been made for this issue.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Comment #5 on issue 2084 by nicolas.pourcelot: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-')
fails
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2084
I think it's ok.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sympy-patches" group.
To post to
Updates:
Labels: NeedsReview smichr
Comment #1 on issue 2092 by smichr: solve4linearsymbol should be hidden or
fixed
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2092
A pull request has been made.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Updates:
Labels: -NeedsReview NeedsBetterPatch
Comment #6 on issue 2084 by nicolas.pourcelot: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-')
fails
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2084
Hmm, I spoke to quickly:
limit(x+1/x,x,0,dir='-')
-oo # ok
limit(1/x**2+1
Comment #7 on issue 2084 by nicolas.pourcelot: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-')
fails
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2084
This is caused by the following bug (in master too) :
limit(1/x**2,x,0,dir='-')
-oo
--
You received this message because you are subs
Updates:
Labels: -NeedsBetterPatch NeedsReview
Comment #8 on issue 2084 by smichr: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-') fails
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2084
This was a separate but related issue: a Pow instead of an Add.
Added a new commit to 2084.
--
You rec
Updates:
Labels: -NeedsReview NeedsBetterPatch
Comment #9 on issue 2084 by nicolas.pourcelot: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-')
fails
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2084
Two comments:
1) About 1/x**(p/q) with x<0:
gruntz(1/x**Rational(3,2),x,0,dir='-
Comment #10 on issue 2084 by nicolas.pourcelot: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-')
fails
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2084
A cleaner version to illustrate what I meant (I didn't adapt tests).
Attachments:
0001-second-Pow-issue-try.patch 1.3 KB
--
Yo
Comment #11 on issue 2084 by smichr: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-') fails
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2084
but x**0 should be 1 no matter what, shouldn't it?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sympy-patches&quo
Comment #12 on issue 2084 by nicolas.pourcelot: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-')
fails
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2084
I think x**0 is already automatically converted to 1 by sympy, isn't it ?
x**0
1
So, computing limit(x**0, x, 0) results in limit(1, x,
Updates:
Labels: -NeedsBetterPatch NeedsReview
Comment #13 on issue 2084 by smichr: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-') fails
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2084
What about positive rationals from the left? Does this now look right?
x**(1/2) dir= - = zoo
x**(1/2) di
Comment #14 on issue 2084 by smichr: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-') fails
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2084
I'll add the tests tonight or tomorrow.
var('x')
from sympy.utilities.iterables import cartes
for args in cartes([-1,1],[2,3,R
Updates:
Labels: -NeedsReview NeedsBetterPatch
Comment #15 on issue 2084 by nicolas.pourcelot: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-')
fails
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2084
"What about positive rationals from the left? Does this now look right?
x**(1/2) dir
Comment #16 on issue 2084 by nicolas.pourcelot: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-')
fails
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2084
On my 2084 branch (with the patch I attached previously):
x**(-2) dir= - = oo
x**(-2) dir= + = oo
x**(-3) dir= - = -oo
x**(-3) dir= + = oo
x**
Updates:
Labels: -NeedsBetterPatch NeedsReview
Comment #17 on issue 2084 by nicolas.pourcelot: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-')
fails
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2084
Chris, I rebased your 2 commits and my patch.
I also added your quite exhaustive test sugges
Comment #18 on issue 2084 by smichr: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-') fails
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2084
I'm not sure about adding all the tests. Tests should test coverage and
assert behavior that shouldn't change. They aren't all needed for covera
Comment #26 on issue 1923 by asmeurer: count_ops doesn't return a count (by
default)
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1923
It's https://github.com/sympy/sympy/pull/23, by the way.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
&quo
Comment #19 on issue 2084 by nicolas.pourcelot: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-')
fails
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2084
"limit(r**(-Rational(1,2)), r, 0, '-') would then be oo not I*oo, right?"
No, once again, this doesn't chang
Comment #2 on issue 2080 by asmeurer: WildFunction needs to reference
Dummy.dummycount not Symbol.dummycount
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2080
You should make a note of them here. Also, don't forget to add a link to,
or at least a reference to the number of the
Comment #2 on issue 2095 by asmeurer: Ana Flores solution for quartic
equation is broken
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2095
https://github.com/sympy/sympy/pull/26
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sympy-patches" grou
Comment #20 on issue 2084 by nicolas.pourcelot: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-')
fails
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2084
(Sorry, previous comment deleted... this was not the right example.)
"limit(r**(-Rational(1,2)), r, 0, '-') would then be oo no
Comment #2 on issue 2092 by asmeurer: solve4linearsymbol should be hidden
or fixed
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2092
https://github.com/sympy/sympy/pull/27
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sympy-patches" group.
To po
Comment #21 on issue 2084 by asmeurer: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-') fails
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2084
This is the pull request: https://github.com/sympy/sympy/pull/29
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sympy
Comment #3 on issue 2092 by smichr: solve4linearsymbol should be hidden or
fixed
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2092
Thanks for the additions, Aaron. I'll try to remember to put those on in
the future.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the G
Comment #22 on issue 2084 by smichr: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-') fails
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2084
I must be forgetting to put in the minus sign when I do the test. I'll make
the change and repush.
--
You received this message because you are su
Comment #23 on issue 2084 by nicolas.pourcelot: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-')
fails
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2084
As of today, the code in the pull request is incorrect, because of the
wrong special case of 'z being a real'.
Chris, do you agree with
Comment #24 on issue 2084 by nicolas.pourcelot: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-')
fails
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2084
(By the way, is there a clean and easy way to make an hyperlink which
refers to a comment, the same way we does for an issue ??)
--
You rec
Comment #25 on issue 2084 by asmeurer: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-') fails
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2084
I don't think Google Code autolinks those like it does issues (see the
bottom of http://code.google.com/p/support/wiki/WhatsNew). Usually, people
ju
Comment #26 on issue 2084 by Vinzent.Steinberg: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-')
fails
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2084
It can be shorter:
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2084#c17
but not as short as "issue 2084".
--
You received this mes
Comment #27 on issue 2084 by smichr: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-') fails
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2084
issue2084#c17
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sympy-patches" group.
To post to this group, send
Updates:
Status: Accepted
Labels: NeedsBetterPatch Maurice.Bremond Printing
Comment #1 on issue 2101 by asmeurer: latex printing with piecewise
function : reversed expr and cond
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2101
If I try compiling \\begin{cases} x & \\
Updates:
Status: Fixed
Labels: -NeedsReview PassedReview
Comment #3 on issue 2095 by ronan.l...@gmail.com: Ana Flores solution for
quartic equation is broken
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2095
It's in.
--
You received this message because you are subsc
Comment #8 on issue 1863 by smichr: nonlinear solver example stopped working
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1863
Mods of issue 1694 also give:
solve([f_1, f_2, f_3], x, y, z)
[(-1 - 2**(1/2), -1 - 2**(1/2), 2 + 2**(1/2) - (1 + 2**(1/2))**2), (0, 0,
1), (0, 1, 0), (-1 + 2
Comment #9 on issue 1863 by mattpap: nonlinear solver example stopped
working
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1863
But we definitely need to get the new polys in place. Perhaps during
winter break
we can get this in?
Yeah, this should be finally done. Currently I'
Comment #2 on issue 2101 by Maurice.Bremond: latex printing with piecewise
function : reversed expr and cond
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2101
If I try compiling \\begin{cases} x & \\text{for}\\: x < 0 0 &
\\text{for}\\: 0 \\leq x \\end{cases}, I get
Comment #10 on issue 1915 by ronan.l...@gmail.com: Unify make_list with
as_Add/as_Mul
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1915
I think I've found a better name: "make_args". "Add.make_args(expr)" seems
reasonably clear to me, or at least clearer than
Comment #11 on issue 1915 by Vinzent.Steinberg: Unify make_list with
as_Add/as_Mul
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1915
Should we also refactor things like
e.rewrite(exp)
for consistency?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"
Comment #12 on issue 1915 by ronan.l...@gmail.com: Unify make_list with
as_Add/as_Mul
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1915
I'm not sure how to refactor e.rewrite(exp), but it works quite differently
from the functions discussed here (it returns an expression that con
Comment #7 on issue 1960 by smichr: should repr form of geometry entities
be the same as str?
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1960
Just as getting an integral sign rather than the word Integral is prettier,
so is getting the conventional coordinate representation of a Point
Comment #8 on issue 1960 by Vinzent.Steinberg: should repr form of geometry
entities be the same as str?
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1960
Well, I'm not sure. The integral sign is unambiguous, whereas a tuple is
not.
For example
(1, 2)
could be a point, a vect
Comment #9 on issue 1960 by smichr: should repr form of geometry entities
be the same as str?
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1960
This patch is not addressing the pprint issue. pprint'ing without this
patch in master gives the Point'less representation, so p
Issue 1936: Integral limits should be sanitized
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1936
This issue is now blocking issue 1694.
See http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1694
--
You received this message because you are listed in the owner
or CC fields of this issue, or
Updates:
Labels: NeedsReview
Blockedon: 1923 1936 1987
Comment #163 on issue 1694 by smichr: solve has many issues with fractions
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1694
OK, I've pulled out the multi-equation handling and added only a little
tsolve mat
Issue 1987: Integral(f(x), (x, g(x), h(x))).diff(x) incorrectly returns 0
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1987
This issue is now blocking issue 1694.
See http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1694
--
You received this message because you are listed in the owner
or CC
Issue 1923: count_ops doesn't return a count (by default)
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1923
This issue is now blocking issue 1694.
See http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1694
--
You received this message because you are listed in the owner
or CC fields of
Comment #164 on issue 1694 by smichr: solve has many issues with fractions
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1694
I'll put a pull request in later today. For now it is at github/smichr
branch 1694.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google G
Updates:
Labels: -PassedReview NeedsBetterPatch
Comment #10 on issue 1960 by Vinzent.Steinberg: should repr form of
geometry entities be the same as str?
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1960
There is a problem:
srepr(Line(Point(2, 2), Point(0, 10)).intersection(Line
Comment #11 on issue 1960 by asmeurer: should repr form of geometry
entities be the same as str?
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1960
Wait, why is ok to break repr() but not srepr()? Actually, I'm not sure I
really understand the subtle difference between the two.
-
Comment #12 on issue 1960 by Vinzent.Steinberg: should repr form of
geometry entities be the same as str?
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1960
I think in sympy we have repr() == str(), because str([...]) uses repr() to
print all elements inside the list, which is usually
Comment #13 on issue 1960 by asmeurer: should repr form of geometry
entities be the same as str?
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1960
I see. I didn't realize that str(list) used repr(). By the way, that
reminds me that we still have that srepr(sqrt(x)) == Pow(Symb
Comment #14 on issue 1960 by asmeurer: should repr form of geometry
entities be the same as str?
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1960
Actually, it's issue 1348, and Mateusz fixed it in his polys branch
(af4c122689a31a1e8546b9bb73bbcb03578c6ada).
--
You received
Comment #165 on issue 1694 by nicolas.pourcelot: solve has many issues with
fractions
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1694
"Labels: NeedsReview
Blockedon: 1923 1936 1987"
I don't understand: is this blocked by new issues, or do you mean that you
also fixed
Comment #166 on issue 1694 by smichr: solve has many issues with fractions
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1694
1923 is the count_ops and that is used by the routine
The integral issues arose while working on this and I already had fixes for
those in the other two issues. If
Issue 2043: log should not expand(1/x) (was "expand log can be more
complete" and "logcombine can be less strict")
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2043
This issue is now blocking issue 2113.
See http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2113
--
You r
Updates:
Labels: Milestone-Release0.7.0
Comment #28 on issue 2084 by nicolas.pourcelot: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-')
fails
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2084
The patch (attached with comment 17) is not very long to review... so I
think this could reasonab
Comment #29 on issue 2084 by asmeurer: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-') fails
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2084
If you can send a patch as a pull request in GitHub, it will greatly
increase its chances of being reviewed.
--
You received this message because you are
Comment #30 on issue 2084 by nicolas.pourcelot: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-')
fails
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2084
I read http://help.github.com/pull-requests/, and this seems quite easy.
Thanks for your advice.
--
You received this message because you are sub
Comment #31 on issue 2084 by smichr: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-') fails
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2084
Nicolas, I fixed the issue of comment 20 in response to someone commenting
on the commit and put in a pull request. I don't care which version goes in
(
Updates:
Labels: nicolas.pourcelot
Comment #32 on issue 2084 by asmeurer: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-') fails
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2084
Since you both have worked on a patch, can you both review each other's
work and make sure that the one p
Comment #33 on issue 2084 by smichr: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-') fails
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2084
I like how mine is factored better. I'm not sure that all the tests are
necessary (as raised in comment 18) and I fix a typo in another test, too.
--
Yo
Comment #34 on issue 2084 by smichr: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-') fails
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2084
2084 now has 100% coverage, too. In comparing the two commits I saw that
2084 imported but did not use zoo while the other did not import it. I
added a test
Comment #13 on issue 1731 by smichr: fraction can be more flexible
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1731
The big difference between fraction and as_numer_denom is that fraction
just gives the naive numer/denom fraction(x/(1+1/b)) -> (x, 1 + 1/b)
whereas as_numer_denom gi
Comment #35 on issue 2084 by nicolas.pourcelot: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-')
fails
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2084
"Nicolas, I fixed the issue of comment 20 in response to someone commenting
on the commit and put in a pull request."
Actually, it w
Comment #36 on issue 2084 by nicolas.pourcelot: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-')
fails
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2084
Chris, I finished reviewing it.
It's almost ok for me.
The most important tests are in, imo.
The only remaining issue is this 1/0 == oo prob
1 - 100 of 1001 matches
Mail list logo