#8495: Regression: Many mathematica doctests now fail
--------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
Reporter: flawrence | Owner: flawrence
Type: defect | Status: new
Priority: major | Milestone:
Component: interfaces | Keywords:
Author: | Upstream: N/A
Reviewer: | Merged:
Work_issues: |
--------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
Changes (by flawrence):
* owner: was => flawrence
Comment:
I've uploaded a patch that has a thorough rewrite of
MathematicaElement._sage_() to get the functionality from #3587 while
keeping the functionality from before it (lists, complex numbers, numbers
in scientific notation...). I still need to write some documentation for
the top of the file (i.e. documentation that makes it into the reference
manual) but before I do that and submit this for formal review I'd like
wise comments about my approach, e.g. "The way you convert function names
is really inefficient and problematic, do it this way...", or "You can
efficiently get a list of all sage functions recognised by sage_eval() by
...".
Also if someone could check the doctests on a 32-bit computer and let me
know the result that they get instead of
[[1.00000000000000, 4], pi, 3.20000000000000*e100, I]
that would be grand.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/8495#comment:2>
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.
