#8734: make sage variables unique in maxima
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: jason | Owner: jason
Type: defect | Status: needs_review
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-6.3
Component: interfaces | Resolution:
Keywords: | Merged in:
Authors: Jason Grout, Ralf | Reviewers: Volker Braun, Paul
Stephan | Zimmerman, Karl-Dieter Crisman
Report Upstream: N/A | Work issues:
Branch: | Commit:
u/rws/ticket/8734-1 | 2c68026320ba3c516cd94fa1721e886ecd732804
Dependencies: | Stopgaps:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by kcrisman):
> > Okay, here are a few questions. I am pretty sure the answers are very
straightforward, but I want to make sure it's clear - in case we might
want to add a doctest, for instance.
> Sure, as long as you remember "The perfect is the enemy of the good."
Of course!
> > * Commit be9367 (where you add a try/except clause in `_create`) -
what sort of situation is that catching?
> There are several places where maxima.eval() is called and where
exceptions are thrown. This one was simply overlooked, so that change
fixes an unreported bug.
Hmm, okay. I don't see how `_create` could have asked for an evaluation
of this type, but I suppose.
> > * Commit ced268 (where you generalized the missing assumptions) -
what situation is that additionally catching? Was that a case of Maxima
asking questions which we didn't catch (and hence doctest) before?
> No, it reduces code duplication. Recommended reading:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_refactoring
I'm not referring to that; in fact, I fully agreed with that strategy in
earlier comments. My question is specifically about `jj=2` - since
usually `jj=3` seems to be the old case. We should test a new branch,
which this appears to be (though it may just be something obvious I'm not
seeing).
> > * I assume you are more than happy with Jason's original patch doing
the basic functionality, right?
> Yes and no. A lot was missing.
I mean in terms of reviewing that for the ''basic'' functionality for
proper conversion. Naturally you provided a huge amount of missing stuff!
> > So these are pretty minor things and hopefully I'll be able to find
some time for the DE part (or someone else will!) and we'll be on our way!
It certainly looks like you were VERY thorough in finding places that
might cause trouble. The difficulty is that one might miss some places it
is needed because in the absence of adding `_SAGE_VAR_` things should
still work, so one might not know if we missed one. Thanks!
> I would assume this is caught by all those doctests using maxima.
That's my point - they may NOT catch a missing one, since we only remove
things via search-and-replace-with-empty-string, and everything worked
before.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/8734#comment:41>
Sage <http://www.sagemath.org>
Sage: Creating a Viable Open Source Alternative to Magma, Maple, Mathematica,
and MATLAB
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-trac" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-trac.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
