#7939: shorten doctests in sage/rings/polynomial/multi_polynomial_ideal.py
-------------------------------------------------+--------------------------
Reporter: rlm | Owner: tbd
Type: defect | Status: positive_review
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-4.3.2
Component: interfaces | Keywords:
Author: Martin Albrecht | Upstream: N/A
Reviewer: Michael Brickenstein, Alex Ghitza | Merged:
Work_issues: |
-------------------------------------------------+--------------------------
Comment(by malb):
Replying to [comment:29 AlexGhitza]:
>One last question: in {{{rings/polynomial/multi_polynomial_ideal.py}}},
you left a handful of
> lines commented out. Was this by purpose, or just an oversight?
I was a bit split about leaving the pexpect interface stuff in or throwing
it out completely. Singular supports some of its ideal operations over the
complex numbers, although they probably don't make much sense there
(rounding errors, 0 != 0 etc.). libSingular does not support complex
numbers yet (although it is implemented in #7577 and waits for input on a
design decision) and thus theoretical we are loosing some functionality.
Then again, we are loosing functionality which does not really make much
sense (e.g. you want to be careful about computing a Gröbner basis to get
the variety of an ideal over CC) This is why I only half hearted removed
the pexpect stuff (which supports CC).
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/7939#comment:31>
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 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.
