#9958: Upgrade python to 2.7.x
---------------------------+------------------------------------------------
Reporter: mhampton | Owner: tbd
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_work
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-5.0
Component: packages | Keywords:
Work_issues: | Upstream: N/A
Reviewer: | Author: François Bissey
Merged: | Dependencies: #5852, #11986, #12085, #12096
---------------------------+------------------------------------------------
Comment(by hivert):
First of all, I'm not an expert of combinatorics on word. So I'd rather
Sebastien Labbe to jump in the discussion. I just trying to help.
> 64bit: two failures
{{{
sage -t -long -force_lib devel/sage-
main/sage/combinat/words/nfactor_enumerable_word.py
**********************************************************************
File "/storage/sage/sage-4.8.alpha3/devel/sage-
main/sage/combinat/words/nfactor_enumerable
_word.py", line 20:
sage: it.next()
Expected:
word: 5645
Got:
word: 4564
**********************************************************************
File "/storage/sage/sage-4.8.alpha3/devel/sage-
main/sage/combinat/words/nfactor_enumerable
_word.py", line 23:
sage: it.next()
Expected:
word: 6456
Got:
word: 5645
**********************************************************************
File "/storage/sage/sage-4.8.alpha3/devel/sage-
main/sage/combinat/words/nfactor_enumerable
_word.py", line 26:
sage: it.next()
Expected:
word: 4564
Got:
word: 6456
**********************************************************************
}}}
This first failure is not a problem. The iterator here is extracted from a
dict of dict so it is not unexpected to have a random order. Fixing the
test
of marking it at random should be ok. This test is an explanation for the
user, the real feature is tested further in the file.
> which have been mentioned previously.
{{{
{(4, word: a): 1, (0, word: b): 5, (0, word: a): 3, (5, word: a): 2, (3,
word: b): 4}
{(4, word: b): 5, (0, word: a): 4, (0, word: b): 3, (5, word: a): 1, (3,
word: a): 2}
}}}
This one is more tricky: As far as I understand, both result are perfectly
legible: the second is the same as the first after applying the following
cyclic permutation (3,4,5). The numbering is random. So (again as far as I
understand), the problem in only created by the cross-platform non-
determinism
of the set/dict data structure. I'm not sure here what is the best fix.
Cheers,
Florent
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/9958#comment:193>
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.
