On 2 Apr., 08:39, Simon King <simon.k...@uni-jena.de> wrote: > On 1 Apr., 08:43, Simon King <simon.k...@uni-jena.de> wrote: > > > ... > > It states that this may depend on possible previous computations. Is > > there really no work around? Such as, using an object that is not > > considered in any other doc test? Is the new result correct? Shouldn't > > both tests better be marked as "random"? > > I notice that in this file, all examples of SFAElementary are over QQ. > Changing it into QQ['t'] for the one failing test does the job.
No, it doesn't. There is a side effect even when one changes from QQ to QQ['t']. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-combinat-devel" group. To post to this group, send email to sage-combinat-devel@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-combinat-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-combinat-devel?hl=en.
