On Aug 20, 10:09 pm, Martin Albrecht
wrote:
> One more thing: let's just have a formal vote now and not bent the rules.
It's important to have rules so that we have something to bend. But if
you insist:
> So:
> [X] yes, c'mon why isn't it included already
> [] yes but write a paper about it fir
> [X] yes include it as standard
> [] yes but have it as optional SPKG first
> [] I don't care
> [] no don't include
Best,
Alex
--
Alex Ghitza -- Lecturer in Mathematics -- The University of Melbourne
-- http://aghitza.org
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
T
On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Rob Beezer wrote:
>
>> So:
>> [X] yes include it as standard
agreed, +1
>> [] yes but have it as optional SPKG first
>> [] I don't care
>> [] no don't include
>
> --
> To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this
> So:
> [X] yes include it as standard
> [] yes but have it as optional SPKG first
> [] I don't care
> [] no don't include
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more opt
+1 from me for standard package.
H
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URL: http://www.sage
[X] yes include it as standard
[ ] yes but have it as optional SPKG first
[ ] I don't care
[ ] no don't include
I agree in principle, though I haven't reviewed any of the spkg.
Jason
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an
One more thing: let's just have a formal vote now and not bent the rules. If
there's sufficient interest in this then it will survive an additional vote.
Here's the description again:
M4RIE is a library for dense linear algebra over GF(2^e). It is heavily based
on M4RI and is written by me. It
On Saturday 20 August 2011, Simon King wrote:
> Hi William, hi Martin,
>
> On 20 Aug., 21:56, William Stein wrote:
> > My impression is that this is *not* a totally new spkg, but simply
> > some additional code of a similar nature being included in an existing
> > spkg.If so, no formal vote i
Hi William, hi Martin,
On 20 Aug., 21:56, William Stein wrote:
> My impression is that this is *not* a totally new spkg, but simply
> some additional code of a similar nature being included in an existing
> spkg. If so, no formal vote is required for this, just positive
> review of the ticket
On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 10:55 AM, Martin Albrecht
wrote:
>> And I hope you don't mind that I asked here: I thought that the wish
>> to add it as a standard package was implicit in your opening the
>> ticket.
>
> I don't understand the question. Yep, I wanted it to become standard when I
> opened i
> And I hope you don't mind that I asked here: I thought that the wish
> to add it as a standard package was implicit in your opening the
> ticket.
I don't understand the question. Yep, I wanted it to become standard when I
opened it and I still would like that to happen.
Cheers,
Martin
--
nam
Hi Martin,
On 20 Aug., 19:36, Martin Albrecht
wrote:
> we did have some sort of vote before
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel/browse_thread/thread/1794b8985d788004/
>
> which left me with the impression that it was accepted.
I was not aware of that thread (I think you didn't mention
> IIRC, adding a standard spkg also requires someone in charge of its
> maintenance for at least two years; maybe ask Martin...? ;-)
This is new to me but it makes sense. Of course, I will look after maintaining
this library's SPKG.
Cheers,
Martin
--
name: Martin Albrecht
_pgp: http://pgp.mit.e
On 20 Aug., 16:34, Simon King wrote:
> Martin Albrecht had opened #9562 and proposed to use M4RIE as default
> for matrices over GF(2^e). If I understand correctly, the package
> builds fine on all supported platforms (including Cygwin).
>
> The ticket is almost getting a positive review from me,
I am all for it, but shouldn't it become an optional package first?
Dima
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.c
PS:
I forgot to ask another question. Provided that we decide to make it a
standard package: Should the new module for matrices over GF(2^e) be
included in the reference manual?
Without any exception, all methods are either cdef resp. underscore
(hence, will not be in the reference manual anywa
16 matches
Mail list logo
