#16466: Add gambit as an optional package
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: jcampbell | Owner:
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_review
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-6.4
Component: packages: | Resolution:
optional | Merged in:
Keywords: | Reviewers: Thierry Monteil,
Authors: James Campbell, | Karl-Dieter Crisman, Travis
Vince Knight | Scrimshaw
Report Upstream: N/A | Work issues:
Branch: | Commit:
u/vinceknight/gambit | 2b5251184a2789fb6049e494b82f5214735f08ff
Dependencies: | Stopgaps:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by vinceknight):
Replying to [comment:48 kcrisman]:
> {{{
> +Note that all of the above examples can be used in Ipython without the
need to
> +convert integers to instances of `int`.
> }}}
> I think that copy/paste some of the documentation from the Gambit site,
and/or actual examples (there should be a way to mark these as not tested
or not Sage tests, especially since it won't have `sage:` in front) would
be best instead of this remark.
>
> In fact, you could put that ''first'' and then say "if you really want
to use Gambit in Sage without using the (soon-to-come) interface, do this
stuff with int".
>
I've gone with your suggestion: moving most of the packages to Ipython as
well as a discussion of how to run the Sage Ipython cli tool.
Also note that I've made the tests for `gambit.py` have the optional tag
so now to run them you need:
{{{
./sage -t --optional=gambit src/sage/game_theory/gambit.py
}}}
I thought it was worth doing this in case an overall global test of Sage
would try to test this gambit file.
> By the way, we can positively review this ticket and then put its goal
to "sage-pending" waiting on #16333; this is already a prereq for that, so
one can make it that dependency without having to merge this in the main
develop branch right away. Then you can preface all this with a remark
(on that ticket or here) linking to `normal_form_game.py` or some of the
functions there (see the developer guide for how to do this) so that
curious folks mostly just go right back to where they belong, and this
remains a "fyi" document only.
Not too sure what is best: I'm happy enough with letting this merge in to
develop now? I don't think it's likely that many people would have a
problem with it being merged as is, happy to follow your guidance. Either
way work on #16333 will come from a branch of this once it's been
positively reviewed.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/16466#comment:50>
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.
