On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 6:49 PM 'Travis Scrimshaw' via sage-devel
wrote:
>
> Hi William,
>That is interesting. Although my take on that is following Matthias's
> proposal, they will just use one (or more) part of Sage as a Python library.
> So if they switch, in effect they will still be
On Thursday, June 15, 2023 at 6:58:36 PM UTC-7 Travis Scrimshaw wrote:
I've been following along with different pieces to see how it's going. You
are right, in part I am bringing this up now because it is is affecting
code I care about (and regularly use to promote Sage)
Well, when you
On Thursday, June 15, 2023 at 6:38:39 PM UTC-7 William Stein wrote:
Have you worried at all about doctests/examples and the sage
preparser/global environment that is assumed in all the doctests?
I don't have plans to make any changes to this. The doctests do assume that
the global environment
On Thursday, June 15, 2023 at 7:18:25 PM UTC-7 Travis Scrimshaw wrote:
then we should make sure the doc is very clean.
Then I think you'll be happy when you notice that while going through these
doctests in detail to add # optional, I have been making massive cleanups
of docstrings.
--
On Friday, June 16, 2023 at 10:18:57 AM UTC+9 Matthias Koeppe wrote:
On Thursday, June 15, 2023 at 6:03:41 PM UTC-7 Travis Scrimshaw wrote:
Perhaps this is the core question (for me): What do you expect most/casual
users to download and install?
It may be the wrong question because it seems
On Friday, June 16, 2023 at 10:58:36 AM UTC+9 Travis Scrimshaw wrote:
... but it is also starting to come with policy implications due to its
scale that are not easy to revert.
Right. So I welcome all these discussions. We (the developers and even
those focusing on research mathematics) need
On Friday, June 16, 2023 at 10:49:49 AM UTC+9 Kwankyu Lee wrote:
The Sage distribution will continue to exist. There will be no user-visible
change coming from the modularization project for the users of the Sage
distribution.
That is simply not true right now. The # optional sage.*
The Sage distribution will continue to exist. There will be no user-visible
change coming from the modularization project for the users of the Sage
distribution.
That is simply not true right now. The # optional sage.* doctests as a
user-visible change.
Matthias means that all pieces (the
Hi William,
That is interesting. Although my take on that is following Matthias's
proposal, they will just use one (or more) part of Sage as a Python
library. So if they switch, in effect they will still be dropping Sage. I
don't see Sage as having its own custom language other than some
On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 6:19 PM Matthias Koeppe
wrote:
> On Thursday, June 15, 2023 at 6:03:41 PM UTC-7 Travis Scrimshaw wrote:
>
> [...] Some of it can be fixed by changing the nomenclature "optional" to
> something else as that suggests something a user should *add* to the
> installation.
>
>
On Thursday, June 15, 2023 at 6:08:36 PM UTC-7 Travis Scrimshaw wrote:
On Monday, June 12, 2023 at 10:53:38 AM UTC+9 Matthias Koeppe wrote:
It works the other way around. B and C (applied to individual Cython/Python
modules) were/are _obstacles_ to making modularized pip-installable
On Thursday, June 15, 2023 at 6:03:41 PM UTC-7 Travis Scrimshaw wrote:
[...] Some of it can be fixed by changing the nomenclature "optional" to
something else as that suggests something a user should *add* to the
installation.
Fine with me to introduce something like "# module - sage.groups"
On Monday, June 12, 2023 at 10:53:38 AM UTC+9 Matthias Koeppe wrote:
On Sunday, June 11, 2023 at 6:20:03 PM UTC-7 Travis Scrimshaw wrote:
My understanding of William's goal (please correct me if I am wrong) was to
put everything together so nobody was trying to build a better wheel. To
me, by
On Thursday, June 15, 2023 at 12:23:55 AM UTC+9 Matthias Koeppe wrote:
On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 8:01:29 AM UTC-7 Tobias Diez wrote:
On Wednesday, 14 June 2023 at 05:37:15 UTC+8 Matthias Koeppe wrote:
- Some # optional annotations reduce the barrier for contributors, by
clearly signaling
Hi Sage Devs,
As further motivation for this discussion of "Modularization project:
I. The goals", here is a quote from a discussion just now (with
permission) from Eric Deeds, who is the vice chair for Life Sciences
Math Courses and Professor of Integrative Biology and Physiology at
UCLA:
"I
On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 11:33:37 PM UTC-7 Kwankyu Lee wrote:
Would there be one-to-one correspondence between distribution packages and
features (for modules of sage library)?
For example, for `sage.plot`, would there be one distribution package
`sagemath-plot`?
One-to-one
Flint also has dense matrices over rings in general, so one can use any
Flint ring, not only Z mod n.
On Thu, 15 Jun 2023, 14:07 Edgar Costa, wrote:
> Indeed, that is what we should use for single-word modulus.
> I think David and I wrote a wrapper at some point, but then we did not use
> it?
Indeed, that is what we should use for single-word modulus.
I think David and I wrote a wrapper at some point, but then we did not use
it?
On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 8:26 AM Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> Flint has matrices mod n, see https://flintlib.org/doc/nmod_mat.html
> I guess they should be fast
Flint has matrices mod n, see https://flintlib.org/doc/nmod_mat.html
I guess they should be fast - but they need Sage interface to be provided.
On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 1:01 PM Georgi Guninski wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 8:15 PM David Roe wrote:
> >
> > Another possibility would be to
On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 8:15 PM David Roe wrote:
>
> Another possibility would be to change the __pow__ method for integer
> matrices to not ignore the modulus argument. As a workaround you can either
> use pari (as you discovered), or use an integer matrix and occasionally
> reduce the
On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 11:59 AM Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> Well, I'll try if I can trigger version 10.0. I also noticed there are two
>> webhooks in the github repo. Not sure what to do, I'll leave it as it is
>> for now.
>>
>
> What webhooks?
>
>
So, anyone who has access to the github repo
On Thu, 15 Jun 2023, 10:56 Harald Schilly, wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 11:51 AM Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
>> OK, but we probably should not be running this on "all" releases, only
>> on the missing on Zenodo ones.
>> Also, it's you who has to run this script, most probably I can't (as
>>
On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 11:51 AM Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> OK, but we probably should not be running this on "all" releases, only
> on the missing on Zenodo ones.
> Also, it's you who has to run this script, most probably I can't (as
> it's somehow "owned" by you).
>
Well, I'll try if I can
Hi Harald,
On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 9:09 AM Harald Schilly wrote:
>
> Hi, I was indeed the one who set this up, but I vaguely remember someone else
> added files to the sources back then.
files are a different story, no files will do anything if the
integration is off, I suppose.
>
> In any
Hi, I was indeed the one who set this up, but I vaguely remember someone
else added files to the sources back then.
In any case, I accessed zenodo and removed the link with zenodo from the
archived version, and added the sagemath/sage repository.
Let's see what happens, i.e. it says it is
Would there be one-to-one correspondence between distribution packages and
features (for modules of sage library)?
For example, for `sage.plot`, would there be one distribution package
`sagemath-plot`?
One-to-one correspondence would make things simpler to understand.
--
You received this
26 matches
Mail list logo
