On Sunday 04 November 2007, Simon King wrote: > Dear sage-team, > > > Perhaps the huge number of singular objects 'sage<xxxx>' is the problem? > > Would step (*) be a problem if there are too many objects? > > > > Do you think it would help if i'd do the whole thing via 'singular.eval', > > assigning names to the (few) essential singular objects myself? > > I tried, and if i do everything with singular.eval, keeping track of > the singular objects myself, then it works better.
Hi Simon, would you be willing to fill a bug report about this with our trac server? http://trac.sagemath.org ? If you don't have an account William will (probably) provide one for you. I ask because I lack the time right now to properly deal with this bug report but would regret to let it slip. Also you know if much better than e.g. I do. An explicit way to reproduce the bug would certainly help, e.g.: "you run these lines and wait for every but you run those lines and it works". This way it won't get lost (and we do fix old bugs!) I hope that works for you, Martin -- name: Martin Albrecht _pgp: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x8EF0DC99 _www: http://www.informatik.uni-bremen.de/~malb _jab: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support URLs: http://sage.math.washington.edu/sage/ and http://sage.scipy.org/sage/ -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
