Before of this patch, this calculation returned an AssertionError
(see issue #1051).
Adopted approach is to not use the assumptions framework for this
calculation. This is faster, but also, since we are slowly moving
the assumption system out of the core, this will have to be how
things are done
On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 9:53 AM, Fabian Seoane wrote:
>
> Before of this patch, this calculation returned an AssertionError
> (see issue #1051).
The new version is worse, IMO. Instead of just asking whether the
argument is negative, it now needs to worry about details about the
evalf implementat
Yep, now it's +1, thanks!
On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 1:53 AM, Fabian Seoane wrote:
>
> Before of this patch, this calculation returned an AssertionError
> (see issue #1051).
>
> Adopted approach is to not use the assumptions framework for this
> calculation. This is faster, but also, since we are s
Fredrik Johansson wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 9:53 AM, Fabian Seoane wrote:
>
>> Before of this patch, this calculation returned an AssertionError
>> (see issue #1051).
>>
>
> The new version is worse, IMO. Instead of just asking whether the
> argument is negative, it now needs to wo
Fabian Seoane wrote:
> Before of this patch, this calculation returned an AssertionError
> (see issue #1051).
>
> Adopted approach is to not use the assumptions framework for this
> calculation. This is faster, but also, since we are slowly moving
> the assumption system out of the core, this will