#4702: [with patch, needs review] improve magma interface coverage
-----------------------------+----------------------------------------------
Reporter: ncalexan | Owner: was
Type: enhancement | Status: new
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-3.2.2
Component: interfaces | Resolution:
Keywords: magma interface |
-----------------------------+----------------------------------------------
Changes (by ncalexan):
* summary: [with patch, needs work] improve magma interface coverage =>
[with patch, needs review] improve magma
interface coverage
Comment:
I wasn't testing free_module.py correctly, so that's fixed.
I have made sure we lose no precision in the rings. I talked to Carl
Witty about truncating; we shouldn't do it, but Magma seems to do it
anyway:
{{{
sage: a = 61/3.0; a
20.3333333333333
sage: a.str(truncate=False)
'20.333333333333332'
sage: magma(a).sage()
20.3333333333333
sage: magma(a).sage().str(truncate=False)
'20.333333333333300'
sage: magma('RealField(53 : Bits := true)!20.333333333333332')
20.3333333333333
sage: magma('RealField(53 : Bits :=
true)!20.333333333333332').sage().str(truncate=False)
'20.333333333333300'
sage: magma('RealField(53 : Bits := true)!20.333333333333332').Sage()
RealField(53)(20.3333333333333)
}}}
It's coming back from Magma truncated, and I have no idea how to make
Magma print it without truncation. I say we leave it as is -- losing a
bit or three at the end is not a huge concern for me.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/4702#comment:3>
Sage <http://sagemath.org/>
Sage - Open Source Mathematical Software: Building the Car Instead of
Reinventing the Wheel
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-trac" group.
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-trac?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
