On May 10, 2010, at 1:08 PM, Christian Muise wrote:

> Yowzas...
> 
> - Why the changes from "self.new(...)" to "self.__class__(...)"? (it happens 
> in a number of places)
> - I never know about facts.py :p. I was just trying the disconnect by 
> removing the inheritance from Basic(AssumMeths)
> - Is there a canonical way I can search through all the outstanding issues 
> with the old assumptions deletion?

There is an Assumptions tag in the issues, though it doesn't seem to be on many 
issues that are related to assumptions (see 
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/list?q=label:Assumptions).  If you want 
to go through and add the label to all the relevant issues, that would be 
great.  I don't think all the things to do just for removing the old system 
have ever been put together in one spot, though I could be wrong.  

> - You added back all of the is_* as properties (that trivially return False 
> for now). Shouldn't those eventually be stripped out and only the new 
> assumption system used? (via refine and ask)

I thought we decided somewhere back that we would just make these shortcuts to 
the new assumptions.  Of course, that can come later, after the old assumptions 
are completely gone.  

Aaron Meurer
> - Finally, should I be picking up on any of this, or just watching intently? 
> I mucked around locally, but didn't get anything as far as you have.
> 
>   Cheers
>    Haz
> 
> PS. Do you, or anyone else, know of some "hard" tests for the assumption 
> system? Something that the old assumption system struggled with would be 
> nice. I could expand it to a benchmark suite for testing out the new 
> assumption system capabilities.
> 
> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 10:20 PM, Ondrej Certik <ond...@certik.cz> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I started to remove the old assumptions (I simply deleted them) and
> then fixed couple things and tests in the core. It's in this branch:
> 
> http://github.com/certik/sympy/tree/assum
> 
> And the results of sympy.core tests so far:
> 
> 
>  tests finished: 304 passed, 17 failed, 5 expected to fail,
> 1 expected to fail but passed, 19 exceptions, in 1.54 seconds
> 
> which means that 304 passed and 17+19=36 failed. Most of the stuff
> should be working fine. It took me about 1.5h to get to this state.
> 
> Essentially the best way is to define is_integer and similar things in
> the Expr() class (a property that returns False) and redefine it in
> Integer, or something like that.
> 
> I don't know what's the best way to test the speed. So far I don't see
> any difference in speed on small tests.
> 
> e.g. this:
> 
> In [1]: time t = expand((x+y+z+2)**10)
> CPU times: user 0.21 s, sys: 0.00 s, total: 0.21 s
> Wall time: 0.20 s
> 
> is about the same fast in both branches on my laptop.
> 
> I need to run now, so I just wanted to post my code now. I'll try to
> finish this, make sure all important tests run, and sympy is still
> fast, and then just use new assumptions.
> 
> Ondrej
> 
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "sympy" group.
> To post to this group, send email to sy...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
> sympy+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at 
> http://groups.google.com/group/sympy?hl=en.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "sympy" group.
> To post to this group, send email to sy...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
> sympy+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at 
> http://groups.google.com/group/sympy?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sympy" group.
To post to this group, send email to sy...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
sympy+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/sympy?hl=en.

Reply via email to