[sage-devel] Error while building Sage 7.1

Hi I've encountered this error while building Sage from sources obtained from git -clone. I'm running Manjaro Linux 4.3.3-3-ARCH. Any ideas? Thanks John /lib/../lib64/libqd.so: undefined reference to `std::__cxx11::basic_string

Re: [sage-devel] Pythonics

On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 4:19:08 PM UTC+2, Erik Bray wrote: > > One of my top wishlist items for Python 4 is some kind of __hasattr__ > special method for classes and/or an equivalent for descriptors that > merely guarantees* that accessing the attribute of that name will not > result in an

Re: [sage-devel] Pythonics

On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 11:08 PM, Justin C. Walker wrote: > Hi, all, > > I have couple of questions regarding "attributes" in Python/Sage: > > 1. If hasattr(X, "foo") returns True, does that mean that "X.foo" should not > blow up? Yes, this does, because unfortunately hasattr(X,

Re: [sage-devel] Why set([1]) is printed nicely while set([]) is not?

Note also that for the same reason one element tuples are printed as (x,). Because (1) can be confused with paranthesis around a 1. I guess the idea is that: you want to rebuild an object from its string representation (really, just copy-paste in the command line). On 01/04/16 06:12,

Re: [sage-devel] Why set([1]) is printed nicely while set([]) is not?

Indeed, looks like to come from IPython (not Python) : $ sage -python Python 2.7.10 (default, Apr 1 2016, 01:03:57) [GCC 4.9.3] on darwin Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information. >>>

Re: [sage-devel] Why set([1]) is printed nicely while set([]) is not?

Just to expand on that answer: Plain python prints the empty dictionary as {} so it has the potential to be confusing to people that know Python: >>> set() set([]) >>> set([1]) set([1]) >>> dict() {} >>> dict(a=1) {'a': 1} On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 11:07:48 AM UTC+2, Viviane Pons wrote: > >

Re: [sage-devel] Why set([1]) is printed nicely while set([]) is not?

I would say it's a python thing, and it's probably because {} is actually a dictionarry and not a set. 2016-04-01 11:04 GMT+02:00 Sébastien Labbé : > sage: set([1]) > {1} > sage: set() > set() > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >

[sage-devel] Why set([1]) is printed nicely while set([]) is not?

sage: set([1]) {1} sage: set() set() -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to

Re: [sage-devel] Pythonics

On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 1:24:30 AM UTC+2, Justin C. Walker wrote: > > > Just because a method is callable doesn't mean that it can't raise > > exceptions, including NotImplementedErrors. There's no reasonable way > to > > tell if a method will raise an exception or not without calling

Re: [sage-devel] citing Sage: the SageMath version

On 2016-03-31 23:15, Ursula Whitcher wrote: > I noticed that the Wiki entry on citing Sage > > https://wiki.sagemath.org/Publications_using_SAGE > > does not reflect the rebranding of Sage as SageMath. How should the > citation change? In my opinion, yes! I suggest something like: