Make sure that your patch files are in UTF-8 and have unix line
endings. I had a similar problem because my patch files were in the
wrong character encoding.
Aaron Meurer
On May 29, 2009, at 9:32 AM, Ondrej Certik wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 7:09 PM, Chris Smith wrote:
>>
>> - O
I have a patch worked up for issue 1455 now ready for review. Please
pull from http://github.com/asmeurer/sympy/commits/expand-exp-review.
See also the issue page.
Aaron Meurer
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Let's push this in after the release?
I am now going to review the patches.
Ondrej
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 8:13 AM, Fabian Seoane wrote:
>
> this introduces my work on the new assumption system. The old assumption is
> left
> untouched until we migrate all the code the new assumption system.
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 7:10 PM, Chris Smith wrote:
>
>
> If all sympy objects don't have the same attributes then that adds an extra
> layer of testing to the code. When a match is made and the test is being made
> if it's a good function match or not, the expr should not be assumed to have
>
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 7:09 PM, Chris Smith wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Chris Smith"
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 4:23 PM
>
>
> OK...here's my first patch tiny patch fixing tsolve's quit after a linear
> factor. :-)
The patch is +1 to me, thanks!
Just one questi
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 9:29 AM, Ondrej Certik wrote:
> On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 7:10 PM, Chris Smith wrote:
>>
>>
>> If all sympy objects don't have the same attributes then that adds an extra
>> layer of testing to the code. When a match is made and the test is being
>> made if it's a good fu
> x + x*y + a + a*y
> x*(1 + y) + a*(1 + y)
> (x+a)*(1+y)
>
> This should be very fast factoring since you are looking for existing
> factors, not extractable factors. separatevars should be re-written to
> not use factor since that expensive operation is not needed for this.
ization into irreducible
factors.
Any extensions, especially symbolic ones, must guarantee that this
property of our factorization routine is kept.
This should be very fast factoring since you are looking for existing
> factors, not extractable factors. separatevars should be re-written to
>
> I'm not sure what you mean here. factor() uses variety of algorithms,
> heuristics, theorems and irreducibility criteria to improve speed of
> factoring polynomials, e.g.:
I'm only saying (and without understanding at all about how EEZ works)
that based on the behavior of factor one can tell it
ariables:
>
> x + x*y + a + a*y
> x*(1 + y) + a*(1 + y)
> (x+a)*(1+y)
>
> This should be very fast factoring since you are looking for existing
> factors, not extractable factors. separatevars should be re-written to
> not use factor since that expensive operation is not ne
f factors. I call this
> > separation. Pursued recursively, it leads to a possible separation of
> > variables:
>
> > x + x*y + a + a*y
> > x*(1 + y) + a*(1 + y)
> > (x+a)*(1+y)
>
> > This should be very fast factoring since you are looking for existing
> &g
On Aug 11, 12:01 pm, smichr wrote:
> On Aug 10, 1:23 am, Mateusz Paprocki wrote:
This factoring business is so easy to get wrong. The routine at gist
handles pure symbolic factors well (at least the current version I
have here) but it fails for stragglers:
a + b + x*a + x*b
and doesn't respe
- Implemented Brian Granger's proposal of also letting objects define
> their own printing methods.
> (http://groups.google.com/group/sympy/browse_thread/thread/2927bac0810...)
>
> diff -r d66dc8f1f107 -r 054226e56c36 sympy/printing/latex.py
> --- a/sympy/printing/latex.py
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 8:08 PM, Brian Granger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> One issue with the choice of method names like __latex__. Name with
> both leading and trailing double underscores are (at least informally)
> reservered for Python itself. Thus, the common naming scheme for
> methods l
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 11:07 PM, Ondrej Certik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 8:08 PM, Brian Granger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> One issue with the choice of method names like __latex__. Name with
>> both leading and trailing double underscores are (at least informally)
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 11:14 PM, Ondrej Certik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 11:07 PM, Ondrej Certik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 8:08 PM, Brian Granger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> One issue with the choice of method names like __latex__. Name
b/sympy/printing/latex.py Wed Nov 05 07:45:01 2008 -0800
@@ -1,12 +1,14 @@ from sympy.core import S, C, Basic, Symb
+"""
+A Printer which converts an expression into its LaTeX equivalent.
+"""
+
from sympy.core import S, C, Basic, Symbol
from printer import Printer
Could someone review this patch? It's not really urgent, but I don't
want it to get forgotten.
Sebastian
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sympy-patches" group.
To post to this group, send email to sym
Oops, sorry. It's +1. Please push it in.
Ondrej
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 7:00 PM, basti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Could someone review this patch? It's not really urgent, but I don't
> want it to get forgotten.
>
> Sebastian
> >
>
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You rec
; diff -r d66dc8f1f107 -r 054226e56c36 sympy/printing/latex.py
> --- a/sympy/printing/latex.py Fri Oct 24 19:09:04 2008 +0200
> +++ b/sympy/printing/latex.py Tue Nov 04 18:04:02 2008 -0800
> @@ -5,6 +5,8 @@ import re
>
> class LatexPrinter(Printer):
> """A p
>> +Tries the followingc concepts to print an expression:
>
> typ0: followingc -> following
Thanks for noticing. Fixed.
The printing2.patch is in as well.
Ondrej
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Gr
Ondrej Certik wrote:
>>> +Tries the followingc concepts to print an expression:
>>>
>> typ0: followingc -> following
>>
>
>
> Thanks for noticing. Fixed.
>
> The printing2.patch is in as well.
>
> Ondrej
>
> >
>
Thanks for pushing it in and thanks for the correction!
Sebast
On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 5:40 PM, Aaron S. Meurer wrote:
>
> I wrote this logcombine function a while ago for my work in dsolve,
> but I haven't finished the work in dsolve yet. But I figured that the
> logcombine function could be put in, as it is independent of dsolve.
> The function combines lo
OK. I probably should have gotten this together a long while ago, but
I don't mind if it waits until the next release.
Aaron Meurer
On Jul 11, 2009, at 6:22 PM, Ondrej Certik wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 5:40 PM, Aaron S. Meurer
> wrote:
>>
>> I wrote this logcombine function a while
By the way, I am also +1 for all 4, based on my pull from your github
branch.
Aaron Meurer
On Jul 22, 11:00 am, "Aaron S. Meurer" wrote:
> On Jul 22, 2009, at 1:10 AM, Fabian Pedregosa wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Aaron S. Meurer wrote:
> >> How do you actually attach assumptions to variables? The
+1 for all changes, except for the removed test. In my opinion, it
should be fixed or XFAILed.
I'm sorry that parts of your module are broken and nobody noticed.
Vinzent
2009/7/9 Alan Bromborsky :
> Updates:
> Cc: abro...@verizon.net
>
> Comment #1 on issue 1517 by ondrej.certik: galgebra.GA
Vinzent Steinberg wrote:
> +1 for all changes, except for the removed test. In my opinion, it
> should be fixed or XFAILed.
> I'm sorry that parts of your module are broken and nobody noticed.
>
> Vinzent
>
> 2009/7/9 Alan Bromborsky :
>
>> Updates:
>>Cc: abro...@verizon.net
>>
>> Comment #
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 6:25 AM, Alan Bromborsky wrote:
>
> Vinzent Steinberg wrote:
>> +1 for all changes, except for the removed test. In my opinion, it
>> should be fixed or XFAILed.
>> I'm sorry that parts of your module are broken and nobody noticed.
>>
>> Vinzent
>>
>> 2009/7/9 Alan Brombors
Ondrej Certik wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 6:25 AM, Alan Bromborsky wrote:
>
>> Vinzent Steinberg wrote:
>>
>>> +1 for all changes, except for the removed test. In my opinion, it
>>> should be fixed or XFAILed.
>>> I'm sorry that parts of your module are broken and nobody noticed.
>>>
On Jul 27, 2009, at 2:02 PM, Alan Bromborsky wrote:
>
> Ondrej Certik wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 6:25 AM, Alan
>> Bromborsky wrote:
>>
>>> Vinzent Steinberg wrote:
>>>
+1 for all changes, except for the removed test. In my opinion, it
should be fixed or XFAILed.
I'm sorry
2009/7/28 Aaron S. Meurer :
> It looks like it returns an instance of an Or class:
>
> In [1]: S(1)|S(2)
> Out[1]: Or(1, 2)
>
> In [2]: x|y
> Out[2]: Or(x, y)
So it's probably due to the new logic module.
Vinzent
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message be
On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 4:11 AM, smichr wrote:
>
> The following two patches address in one patch several issues that
> I've raised in various issues. I've tried to keep the patch to items
> that are absolutely essential to change to lighten the reviewer's
> burden. Addressed are:
>
> the quartic (
Ondrej Certik wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 4:11 AM, smichr wrote:
>> The following two patches address in one patch several issues that
>> I've raised in various issues. I've tried to keep the patch to items
>> that are absolutely essential to change to lighten the reviewer's
>> burden. Address
>
> This looks good. Where is it in the issue tracker ?
>
> can we pull from some branch ?
>
It's a compilation of several issues. I condensed them all together to
try help in the review process.
When you tried to "copy and paste" it might not have worked because
there were two patches in the te
2009/7/27 Alan Bromborsky
> I think the existing patch referred to is ready to go in.
I pushed it in. (I felt free to add a comment about the removed test.)
Vinzent
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Has anyone yet reviewed this?
Vinzent
2009/8/6 smichr
>
> >
> > This looks good. Where is it in the issue tracker ?
> >
> > can we pull from some branch ?
> >
>
> It's a compilation of several issues. I condensed them all together to
> try help in the review process.
>
> When you tried to "copy
I pushed some patches in from the issues, but maybe there are some more here.
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 6:07 AM, Vinzent
Steinberg wrote:
> Has anyone yet reviewed this?
>
> Vinzent
>
> 2009/8/6 smichr
>>
>> >
>> > This looks good. Where is it in the issue tracker ?
>> >
>> > can we pull from some
Yes, there are more here. These are the distillation of issues
presented elsewhere. The quartics changes are still pending, for
example.
/c
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sympy-patches" group.
To po
Hi,
On Tue, Dec 01, 2009 at 11:01:25AM -0800, smichr wrote:
> smichr's gfactor branch at github has a (hopefully) more robust method
> for factoring. It relies on the standard factor that is part of polys
> but it does pre-processing of an expression with a gcdfactor routine.
> The gcdfactor pulls
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Mateusz Paprocki wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Dec 01, 2009 at 11:01:25AM -0800, smichr wrote:
>> smichr's gfactor branch at github has a (hopefully) more robust method
>> for factoring. It relies on the standard factor that is part of polys
>> but it does pre-processing
2009/12/1 Ondrej Certik :
> We have to get the new polys in finally. I will have time to write
> some documentation for it --- Mateusz, could you please rebase it to
> the latest master? I'll then do my best. I think it fixes lots of
> problems.
>
> Ondrej
Chris did already rebase it on his polys2
Are there going to be separate 0.6.6 and 0.7 releases? I thought that we were
going to just jump right up to 0.7.
Aaron Meurer
On Dec 1, 2009, at 3:29 PM, Vinzent Steinberg wrote:
> 2009/12/1 Ondrej Certik :
>> We have to get the new polys in finally. I will have time to write
>> some documenta
Well, 0.7 would be a great opportunity to break the API compability
(removing old assumptions, new polys, simplified expand etc.), so I
thought we could make a 0.6 release before, because there are already
enough changes accumulated. What do you think?
2009/12/1 Aaron S. Meurer :
> Are there going
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 2:29 PM, Vinzent Steinberg
wrote:
> 2009/12/1 Ondrej Certik :
>> We have to get the new polys in finally. I will have time to write
>> some documentation for it --- Mateusz, could you please rebase it to
>> the latest master? I'll then do my best. I think it fixes lots of
>>
Well, there is definitely enough in master now to warrant a release. Looking
through the log, I see (among other things):
- Tons of bug fixes
- My entire Google Summer of Code Project (the ode module, and also a bunch of
bug fixes)
- Work on piecewise functions and intervals
- Wicks/Second Quan
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Aaron S. Meurer wrote:
> Well, there is definitely enough in master now to warrant a release. Looking
> through the log, I see (among other things):
>
> - Tons of bug fixes
> - My entire Google Summer of Code Project (the ode module, and also a bunch
> of bug fix
2009/12/2 Ondrej Certik :
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Aaron S. Meurer wrote:
>> Well, there is definitely enough in master now to warrant a release.
>> Looking through the log, I see (among other things):
>>
>> - Tons of bug fixes
>> - My entire Google Summer of Code Project (the ode modul
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 5:30 PM, Vinzent Steinberg
wrote:
> 2009/12/2 Ondrej Certik :
>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Aaron S. Meurer wrote:
>>> Well, there is definitely enough in master now to warrant a release.
>>> Looking through the log, I see (among other things):
>>>
>>> - Tons of bug
> Chris's test runner has highest priority (tests not working on Windows
> is no option), assumptions and polys are postponed for 0.7.
>
I've learned (thanks to Vinzent, I think) how to work on Windows with
the test runner and don't have the same problems anymore...I would
have gone crazy by now i
Hi,
On Wed, Dec 02, 2009 at 12:00:20AM +0100, Vinzent Steinberg wrote:
> Well, 0.7 would be a great opportunity to break the API compability
> (removing old assumptions, new polys, simplified expand etc.), so I
> thought we could make a 0.6 release before, because there are already
> enough change
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Mateusz Paprocki wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Dec 02, 2009 at 12:00:20AM +0100, Vinzent Steinberg wrote:
>> Well, 0.7 would be a great opportunity to break the API compability
>> (removing old assumptions, new polys, simplified expand etc.), so I
>> thought we could mak
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 4:12 PM, Ondrej Certik wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Mateusz Paprocki wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 02, 2009 at 12:00:20AM +0100, Vinzent Steinberg wrote:
>>> Well, 0.7 would be a great opportunity to break the API compability
>>> (removing old assumptions, new
One last thing --- all tests+doctests pass, but some documentation
tests fail and I think at least some of them may indicate some bugs,
that should be fixed and regular tests written for:
**
File "doc/src/modules/polynomials.txt",
Hi,
On Wed, Dec 02, 2009 at 04:21:46PM -0800, Ondrej Certik wrote:
> One last thing --- all tests+doctests pass, but some documentation
> tests fail and I think at least some of them may indicate some bugs,
> that should be fixed and regular tests written for:
>
>
> Is gcdfactor() any different from the following?
>
> In [1]: f = x**2*exp(x)+exp(x+y)*x/y
>
> In [2]: f
> Out[2]:
> x + y
> 2 x x⋅ℯ
> x ⋅ℯ +
> y
>
> In [3]: factor(f)
> Out[3]:
> ⎛ y⎞
> ⎜ ℯ ⎟ x
> x⋅⎜x + ──⎟⋅ℯ
> ⎝ y ⎠
>
In this case
Hi,
On Wed, Dec 02, 2009 at 11:49:24PM -0800, smichr wrote:
> > Is gcdfactor() any different from the following?
> >
> > In [1]: f = x**2*exp(x)+exp(x+y)*x/y
> >
> > In [2]: f
> > Out[2]:
> > x + y
> > 2 x x⋅ℯ
> > x ⋅ℯ +
> > y
> >
> > In [3]: factor(f)
>
There are several doctests failing on your polys2 branch.
Vinzent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sympy-patches" group.
To post to this group, send email to sympy-patc...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
sympy-patches
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 4:38 PM, Vinzent Steinberg
wrote:
> There are several doctests failing on your polys2 branch.
Which ones? All doctests run for me.
Ondrej
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sympy-patches" group.
To post to this group, send emai
The failures are all in the Sphinx file polynomials.txt.
Aaron Meurer
On Dec 3, 2009, at 11:21 PM, Ondrej Certik wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 4:38 PM, Vinzent Steinberg
> wrote:
>> There are several doctests failing on your polys2 branch.
>
> Which ones? All doctests run for me.
>
> Ondrej
There are also failures that will not show up until Chris's runtest branch is
merged in if you do:
bin/doctest sympy/polys/galoistools.py
bin/doctest sympy/polys/factortools.py
bin/doctest sympy/polys/monomialtools.py
bin/doctest sympy/polys/polyroots.py
They are all based on the name of the fun
On Dec 4, 11:35 am, "Aaron S. Meurer" wrote:
> There are also failures that will not show up until Chris's runtest branch is
> merged in if you do:
>
> bin/doctest sympy/polys/galoistools.py
> bin/doctest sympy/polys/factortools.py
> bin/doctest sympy/polys/monomialtools.py
> bin/doctest sympy/
This thread is being hijacked ;-) Please keep the new polys module
discussions with Issue 1598.
Mateusz, I looked at the polys branch but don't see where terms_gcd is
being used. Are we looking at the same branch? I'm looking at the
polys version 6b6bc5b.
Here is the test case that I am working w
This thread is being hijacked ;-) Please keep the new polys module
discussions with Issue 1598.
Mateusz, I looked at the polys branch but don't see where terms_gcd is
being used. Are we looking at the same branch? I'm looking at the
polys version 6b6bc5b.
Here is the test case that I am working w
2009/12/4 Ondrej Certik :
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 4:38 PM, Vinzent Steinberg
> wrote:
>> There are several doctests failing on your polys2 branch.
>
> Which ones? All doctests run for me.
See attachement.
Vinzent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"s
Polys2 needs to be rebased again (there are conflicts with the new runtests,
including doctest changes). Once you do this, I am sure the new runtests will
show you the doctest failures, both the ones Vinzent mentioned and the ones I
mentioned. They seem to be all Chris's changes, so maybe he c
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 won't be able to
review that one, as I don't have sage installed.
Aaron Meurer
On Mar 24, 2010, at 5:10 PM, Ondrej Certik wrote:
> Hi,
>
> can someone please
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 won't be able
> to review that one, as I don't have sage installed.
It does. Seems like noone was a
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 4:26 PM, 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 won't be able
>> to review that one, as
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 won't be able to
review that one, as I don't have sage installed.
It does. Seem
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
Ühel kenal päeval, L, 2010-03-27 kell 07:41, kirjutas Toon Verstraelen:
> Hello,
>
> Could someone please review the patches of issue1356?
> http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1356
IMHO, it would be more pythonic if it returns ValueError instead of
TypeError when it encounters invali
On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 12:16 AM, Priit Laes wrote:
> Ühel kenal päeval, L, 2010-03-27 kell 07:41, kirjutas Toon Verstraelen:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Could someone please review the patches of issue1356?
>> http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1356
>
> IMHO, it would be more pythonic if it retu
Priit Laes wrote:
Ühel kenal päeval, L, 2010-03-27 kell 07:41, kirjutas Toon Verstraelen:
Hello,
Could someone please review the patches of issue1356?
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1356
IMHO, it would be more pythonic if it returns ValueError instead of
TypeError when it enc
Ühel kenal päeval, L, 2010-03-27 kell 08:58, kirjutas Toon Verstraelen:
> Priit Laes wrote:
> >>
> > IMHO, it would be more pythonic if it returns ValueError instead of
> > TypeError when it encounters invalid kwarg.
>
> A TypeError is what python raises when wrong keyword arguments are given
>
Ondrej Certik wrote:
On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 12:16 AM, Priit Laes wrote:
Ühel kenal päeval, L, 2010-03-27 kell 07:41, kirjutas Toon Verstraelen:
Hello,
Could someone please review the patches of issue1356?
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1356
IMHO, it would be more pythonic i
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 4:45 AM, smichr wrote:
> Hello,
>
> There are 17 commits that are waiting for review in my 1766 branch.
> They are listed below. When I got feedback in a review, I made changes
> and added another commit so, for example, 1778 has 3 parts. Those will
> be squashed together wh
Only the commits before 1766 are really ready for pushing. I am still
pulling apart 1766.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sympy-patches" group.
To post to this group, send email to sympy-patc...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send
2010/5/10 smichr
> Only the commits before 1766 are really ready for pushing. I am still
> pulling apart 1766.
As I already said, it would be much easier if you could create another
branch for review (1766-for-review) which contains only "stable" changes.
This would help to get it in faster.
V
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 4:56 AM, Vinzent Steinberg
wrote:
> 2010/5/10 smichr
>>
>> Only the commits before 1766 are really ready for pushing. I am still
>> pulling apart 1766.
>
> As I already said, it would be much easier if you could create another
> branch for review (1766-for-review) which co
> > As I already said, it would be much easier if you could create another
> > branch for review (1766-for-review) which contains only "stable" changes.
> > This would help to get it in faster.
The commits before "1766--" are stable. I am not
changing those. I am only, as revie
>
> Do all tests (including the code quality) work for you? If so, we need
> to improve this.
You said "without the first commit". Do you mean without the latest
commit? In any case, all solvers.py tests pass in all commits. The
equal() can be used too make these pass on 32 or 64 bit systems if
n
ti., 11.05.2010 kl. 02.36 -0700, skrev smichr:
> > > As I already said, it would be much easier if you could create another
> > > branch for review (1766-for-review) which contains only "stable" changes.
> > > This would help to get it in faster.
>
> The commits before "1766--"
>
> I hope I am not adding confusion here, but I think Vincent just asked
> for something like
>
> ]$ git branch 1766-for-review ff50ca5221a22e9b80d1
>
> Øyvind
That's a helpful hint Øyvind. I see that that creates a branch with
the indicated commit as the HEAD. I'm willing to do what is most
help
2010/5/11 smichr
> >
> > I hope I am not adding confusion here, but I think Vincent just asked
> > for something like
> >
> > ]$ git branch 1766-for-review ff50ca5221a22e9b80d1
> >
> > Øyvind
>
> That's a helpful hint Øyvind. I see that that creates a branch with
> the indicated commit as the HEA
In the meanwhile, I've used Øyvind's hint to create branches numbered
as to commit number for all the commits in review and pushed them to
github. In cases where there are additions (like 1725a 1725b 1725c,
those are all in branch 1725).
ff50ca5 1936: Integral and Sum edits
c2a77c6 1919: unify var
On May 11, 4:43 pm, smichr wrote:
> In the meanwhile, I've used Øyvind's hint to create branches numbered
> as to commit number for all the commits in review and pushed them to
> github. In cases where there are additions (like 1725a 1725b 1725c,
> those are all in branch 1725).
My parenthesis
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Brian Granger wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was wondering if there was a reason this patch was not applied?
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sympy-patches/browse_thread/thread/e75a05616e1b5732
I think that we have forgot. Brian, do you have a push access to the
sympy repo
On Jun 22, 2010, at 12:35 PM, Ondrej Certik wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Brian Granger wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I was wondering if there was a reason this patch was not applied?
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/sympy-patches/browse_thread/thread/e75a05616e1b5732
>
> I think that
2010/6/22 Aaron S. Meurer :
> With the issues list, if someone hasn't looked at a patch for over a week,
> there's a pretty good chance that no one ever will, unless the person who
> submitted the patch sends out a reminder like this one.
Indeed. For this I would like to set up a patch tracker.
I talked to smart bear [0] at a tech fair last week. They are up for
hosting open source projects. Perhaps this would be something to look
into.
-- Andy
[0] http://smartbear.com/
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 2:48 PM, Vinzent Steinberg
wrote:
> 2010/6/22 Aaron S. Meurer :
>> With the issues list,
Looks good. All such warnings are gone in Python2.7rc2, and all tests pass
(except for the ones from issue 1970).
So now, it looks like except for cmp vs. key and reduce, the rest should be
doable with the 2to3.py tool (except for maybe the compiler module in
assumptions.py, I don't know any
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 8:57 AM, Aaron S. Meurer wrote:
> Looks good. All such warnings are gone in Python2.7rc2, and all tests pass
> (except for the ones from issue 1970).
> So now, it looks like except for cmp vs. key and reduce, the rest should be
> doable with the 2to3.py tool (except for may
It's in.
Aaron Meurer
On Jul 5, 2010, at 1:01 PM, Ondrej Certik wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 8:57 AM, Aaron S. Meurer wrote:
>> Looks good. All such warnings are gone in Python2.7rc2, and all tests pass
>> (except for the ones from issue 1970).
>> So now, it looks like except for cmp vs. key
Thanks, I'll fix it very soon.
Øyvind
On 9 Jul, 23:51, certik1 wrote:
> Hi,
>
> the new patches about codegen are awesome, as well as Tuple and so on.
> Great job!
>
> Ondrej
>
> P.S.
> I tried to compile on my rhel5 box and got some easy to fix things for
> python2.4.
>
> cert...@hvis6:~/repos/
Here is a patch.
Ø
lø., 10.07.2010 kl. 05.49 -0700, skrev Øyvind Jensen:
> Thanks, I'll fix it very soon.
>
> Øyvind
>
> On 9 Jul, 23:51, certik1 wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > the new patches about codegen are awesome, as well as Tuple and so on.
> > Great job!
> >
> > Ondrej
> >
> > P.S.
> > I trie
It's in, thanks!
On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Øyvind Jensen wrote:
> Here is a patch.
>
> Ø
>
>
> lø., 10.07.2010 kl. 05.49 -0700, skrev Øyvind Jensen:
>> Thanks, I'll fix it very soon.
>>
>> Øyvind
>>
>> On 9 Jul, 23:51, certik1 wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > the new patches about codegen are aw
2010/6/22 Brian Granger :
> Hi,
>
> I was wondering if there was a reason this patch was not applied?
The patch is in now.
Vinzent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sympy-patches" group.
To post to this group, send email to sympy-patc...@googlegroups
Okay looks like there was a incompatibility with the str.startswith in
python2.4 to 2.5. (2.4 doesn't accept tuple arguments).
I've attached a patch.
-- Andy
On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 3:40 PM, Ondrej Certik wrote:
> It's in, thanks!
>
> On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Øyvind Jensen
> wrote:
>
I went ahead and pushed this in since the tests were broken.
-- Andy
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 2:49 PM, Andy Ray Terrel wrote:
> Okay looks like there was a incompatibility with the str.startswith in
> python2.4 to 2.5. (2.4 doesn't accept tuple arguments).
>
> I've attached a patch.
>
> -- Andy
Thanks!
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 1:20 PM, Andy Ray Terrel wrote:
> I went ahead and pushed this in since the tests were broken.
>
> -- Andy
>
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 2:49 PM, Andy Ray Terrel
> wrote:
>> Okay looks like there was a incompatibility with the str.startswith in
>> python2.4 to 2.5.
1 - 100 of 2008 matches
Mail list logo
