When Sage does something different than what I expect, I look at the doc
instead of wondering why it's different
When a list becomes a tuple and all of a sudden a 10 lines functions (that
calls other functions) returns wrong answers I swear that you don't. Come
on Travis open your eyes, this
2014-09-08 8:07 UTC+02:00, Nathann Cohen nathann.co...@gmail.com:
When Sage does something different than what I expect, I look at the doc
instead of wondering why it's different
When a list becomes a tuple and all of a sudden a 10 lines functions (that
calls other functions) returns wrong
I understand that you would expect the same result when calling a function
on a list and on a tuple. I'm still not sure it needs to be changed: what
you call a bug is obviously a feature for many people.
And nevertheless, what I don't see is why you would expect the same
behaviour when calling ()
Thank you Bill for your input. You made me think of some aspects that will
be important. Still, let us first focus on getting some citation management
into Sage, and then work on it. As for Volker's question on what the goal
is: First step, and I think we agree that this desirable: Get third
On Monday, September 8, 2014 9:47:51 AM UTC+1, Martin Raum wrote:
For Python, because there is no inlining, I thought of a little hack. To
trigger citations call
sage.citation.cite(bib.libsingular)
Now, if citation is enabled, then cite = _cite(*bibs), and if not then cite
= def
On 2014-09-07, Travis Scrimshaw tsc...@ucdavis.edu wrote:
I never said that, or at least I didn't mean anything like this.
I meant to say that it is insane to have a special
kind of imput for cyclic permutations:
Permutation((1,2,3))
while not having anything like
If there are no objections to the former, I can probably provide an
implementaion...
To me making it handle Permutation((1,2,3),(4,5,6)) still has the major
problem of making a difference between Permutation((1,2,3)) and
Permutation([1,2,3]) If a permutation is a list of cycles, let
Hi,
An effort has been made on documentation for them:
http://sagemath.org/doc/developer/packaging.html
But for the new layout, it is not enough to have a package. You need
to register it in Sage source code.
Vincent
2014-09-08 17:45 UTC+02:00, Nico Van Cleemput nico.vancleem...@gmail.com:
Hi
I had found that part, but maybe I wasn't clear about the parts that
weren't clear for me. ;-)
The packages I'm talking about, are optional packages. They can just as
well be included in the source code, or is that only reserved for standard
packages.
The documentation never mentions what
On 8 September 2014 18:39, Nico Van Cleemput nico.vancleem...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi
I had found that part, but maybe I wasn't clear about the parts that weren't
clear for me. ;-)
The packages I'm talking about, are optional packages. They can just as well
be included in the source code, or is
Ok, I think that was actually what I used to do, but just wanted to be sure
that there wasn't some special procedures by now.
Cheers
Nico
2014-09-08 18:45 GMT+02:00 John Cremona john.crem...@gmail.com:
On 8 September 2014 18:39, Nico Van Cleemput nico.vancleem...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi
I
On 8 September 2014 18:49, Nico Van Cleemput nico.vancleem...@gmail.com wrote:
Ok, I think that was actually what I used to do, but just wanted to be sure
that there wasn't some special procedures by now.
Anyone testing will need to download it manually and place it their
own SAGE_ROOT/upsteam
On Sunday, September 7, 2014 9:24:48 AM UTC-7, Volker Braun wrote:
If you want to cite inside a decision tree then you can't do that with a
decorator. Instead of *also* having a function call syntax, we should then
*only* have function call syntax. Nothing good ever came out of having two
I really believe on general principles that if at all possible, something
like this should be zero penalty.
Burcin, I obviously don't think you are trying to slow Sage down. I'm sure
you know I always appreciate your efforts.
It sounds like this won't actually affect flint all that much, as
I see your message only know. Do you know how to be alerted when somebody
answer a question of mine ?
Yes, I have libglpk.so , libglpk.so.0 and libglpk.so.0.5.0 in /usr/lib/
There is no
file config.log in /home/paul.mercat/sage/local/var/tmp/sage/build/ppl-1.1/
Paul
Le mercredi 3 septembre
That also seems like a true option, in particular, because of the zero
penalty. Do you have an idea how to handle the problem that not citation
can be decided at function level (hence using decorators)?
Am Montag, 8. September 2014 19:32:33 UTC+2 schrieb Nils Bruin:
On Sunday, September 7,
Must be /home/paul.mercat/sage/local/var/tmp/sage/build/ppl-1.1/src/config.log
then, sorry for the mistake. But it is almost certain the system glpk
is the problem.
Not sure how to get you updated automatically if you are not subscribed
to the list sorry.
Francois
On Mon, 08 Sep 2014 11:50:33
On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 7:57 AM, Burcin Erocal bur...@erocal.org wrote:
On Sat, 6 Sep 2014 11:52:33 -0700 (PDT)
Bill Hart goodwillh...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Saturday, 6 September 2014 20:34:56 UTC+2, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
Note that Cython supports cProfile these days:
On 9 Sep 2014 00:25, François Bissey francois.bis...@canterbury.ac.nz
wrote:
But it is almost certain the system glpk
is the problem.
If so, given Sage ships glpk, and quite a number of other packages to
ensure that we control exactly the versions being linked, then I suspect
the ppl package
On 9/09/2014, at 16:32, Dr. David Kirkby (Kirkby Microwave Ltd)
drkir...@kirkbymicrowave.co.uk wrote:
On 9 Sep 2014 00:25, François Bissey francois.bis...@canterbury.ac.nz
wrote:
But it is almost certain the system glpk
is the problem.
If so, given Sage ships glpk, and quite a
20 matches
Mail list logo
