#9130: Access to beta function
------------------------------------------------------------------+---------
Reporter: kcrisman |
Owner: burcin
Type: enhancement |
Status: needs_review
Priority: major |
Milestone: sage-5.0
Component: symbolics |
Keywords: special function, pynac, sd35.5 Cernay2012
Work_issues: |
Upstream: N/A
Reviewer: Benjamin Jones, Burcin Erocal, Karl-Dieter Crisman |
Author: Karen T. Kohl, Burcin Erocal, Karl-Dieter Crisman
Merged: |
Dependencies: #4498
------------------------------------------------------------------+---------
Changes (by benjaminfjones):
* status: needs_work => needs_review
Comment:
I rebased the patches against #4498. This meant moving the changes to
`sage/symbolic/random_tests.py` out of
[attachment:trac_9130_beta_function.patch] and into a new patch
[attachment:trac_9130-random-tests.patch] that reflects the differences in
the random tests after #4498 was applied and `beta` was added.
The tests in `random_test.py` are getting annoying. Now #9130 must depend
on #4498 and in turn my #11888 must depend on #9130, etc. To finish
#11143, I need to rebase the changes to `random_tests.py` to all 3 of
these other symbolics patches.
Would it make sense to open a new ticket for changes needed to
`random_tests.py` after all the new symbolic functions are added that will
go into sage-5.0? This new ticket would depend on all the other tickets
adding new functions. This way we wouldn't have to fix the random tests
like this in every ticket that adds a new function, just *once* per
release.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/9130#comment:37>
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.
