#10187: Update ecl and maxima
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Reporter: vbraun
| Owner: tbd
Type: defect
| Status: needs_work
Priority: major
| Milestone: sage-4.6.1
Component: packages
| Keywords:
Author: Volker Braun, David Kirkby
| Upstream: Workaround found; Bug reported upstream.
Reviewer: Karl-Dieter Crisman, David Kirkby, Volker Braun, Leif Leonhardy
| Merged:
Work_issues:
|
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Comment(by drkirkby):
If you comment the doctest, to indicate that the numerical results have
not been verified, explaining why, then I;d consider that OK. But I think
to stick a test with numerical results, which have not been verified,
needs to be noted.
I would also remark you are not the author of the original test, but don't
think the integral has been verified.
If state the reasons for the numerical results in the doctest then
* I'm happy with everything except the Lisp.
* You copied the Lisp, but understand Lisp and know its correct.
* Someone else can verify my ECL package
then I think that is all we need tor a positive review.
I must say, I think it's pretty unimpressive if we use as a test a result
we have not verified. I would have thought it more sensible to use an
example from a table of integrals from a book, verify it with Mathematica
or Maple. But to base a test on something we don't even know is right is a
very unfortunate state of affairs.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/10187#comment:102>
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.
