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
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
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
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/
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
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
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
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
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)
>
> 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 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:
>
>
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",
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
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
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
> 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
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
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 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
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 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, 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
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
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
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
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
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 out terms that can be removed multiplicatively
from all terms in an
28 matches
Mail list logo
