Re: [sage-devel] What does MPolynomial_libsingular.reduce() do?

[Travis Scrimshaw]

> Can you tell from this documentation what the function will compute 
> prior to running it? I can't. 
>

It takes I as the generators of the ideal and uses that as the reduction 
set.

>
> I agree with Daniel: this function does something useful and sensible 
> when I is an ideal, so it shouldn't be underscored. 
>
> But I have no idea of what it does when I is a list, except give an 
> undefined result congruent to self modulo the ideal generated by I. So 
> I again agree with Daniel: if we can figure out what this function 
> does, we should document it better. And I would go as far as adding 
> that if we can't figure it out, we should forbid list input. 
>
> What it does is probably do the reduction using the list in reverse order 
for this case. As previously mentioned, because it is not a Gröbner basis, 
there is no guarantee of a canonical result. So IMO it does what the 
documentation says it does.

Best,
Travis

 

-- 
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 sage-devel@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[sage-devel] Re: VOTE: inclusion of OpenSSL in Sage

[Nathan Dunfield]

|X| Yes, we should fully support OpenSSL now, and clarify the licensing 
issue.  


-- 
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 sage-devel@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: VOTE: inclusion of OpenSSL in Sage

[Dima Pasechnik]

by clarification I meant this: 
https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!msg/sage-devel/rhMrNK_2c24/GYHzsSd6BAAJ

-- 
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 sage-devel@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [sage-devel] What does MPolynomial_libsingular.reduce() do?

[Luca De Feo]

On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 7:35 PM, 'Martin R. Albrecht' via sage-devel
 wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> this is already documented:
>
> “ Return the normal form of self w.r.t. "I", i.e. return the
>   remainder of this polynomial with respect to the polynomials in
>   "I". If the polynomial set/list "I" is not a (strong) Groebner
>   basis the result is not canonical.
> ”

Can you tell from this documentation what the function will compute
prior to running it? I can't.

I agree with Daniel: this function does something useful and sensible
when I is an ideal, so it shouldn't be underscored.

But I have no idea of what it does when I is a list, except give an
undefined result congruent to self modulo the ideal generated by I. So
I again agree with Daniel: if we can figure out what this function
does, we should document it better. And I would go as far as adding
that if we can't figure it out, we should forbid list input.

Luca

-- 
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 sage-devel@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: VOTE: inclusion of OpenSSL in Sage

[William Stein]

On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 11:07 AM Jeroen Demeyer 
wrote:

> On 2017-10-16 12:08, Emmanuel Charpentier wrote:
> > |_| Yes, we should fully support OpenSSL now, and clarify the
> > licensing issue.
>
> What does "clarifying" the licensing issue even mean? The fact that
> OpenSSL is *in the process of* relicensing does not help us at the
> moment. And you don't need a mailing list vote to change the Sage
> license: you need approval from every author of every GPL package in Sage.


To me, "clarify the license situations means":

1. At a mimum:  make it crytstal clear in our LICENSE/README file and
binaries download page that we are distribution OpenSSL (or at least
something that depends on OpenSSL), and that -- depending on
interpretations of the system license exception -- this may violate the
GPL.  I think making this situation *clear* is absolutely essential, rather
than say just "sneaking" openssl into Sage.

2. Also: explain that the risk is minimal, since it is the intention of the
OpenSSL authors to relicense, and several of us significant copyright
holders (e.g., me) can at least make a clear statement that **WE** are not
going to complain or sue anybody for combining Sage with OpenSSL.

Until OpenSSL is properly relicensed there is a small but real risk of some
problem arising from this copyright situation.That has to be balanced
with the very real risk that shipping a crippled security stack directly
results in users of Sage having their computers and personal information
compromised.

A legally safer approach would be to never include openssl in sage, but
instead make a system-wide install of openssl a hard requirement for
building or installing sage.  We then still link to openssl.   The build
fails if it libopenssl-dev (or whatever) is not available.  A binary
install doesn't work (in some cases?) if it isn't available.Maybe this
should be a third option for the vote?   It seems like what Eric wanted...

William


>
> --
> 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 sage-devel@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
-- 
-- William Stein

-- 
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 sage-devel@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: VOTE: inclusion of OpenSSL in Sage

[Jeroen Demeyer]

On 2017-10-16 12:08, Emmanuel Charpentier wrote:

|_| Yes, we should fully support OpenSSL now, and clarify the
licensing issue.


What does "clarifying" the licensing issue even mean? The fact that 
OpenSSL is *in the process of* relicensing does not help us at the 
moment. And you don't need a mailing list vote to change the Sage 
license: you need approval from every author of every GPL package in Sage.


--
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 sage-devel@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [sage-devel] What does MPolynomial_libsingular.reduce() do?

['Martin R. Albrecht' via sage-devel]

Hi there,

this is already documented:

“ Return the normal form of self w.r.t. "I", i.e. return the
  remainder of this polynomial with respect to the polynomials in
  "I". If the polynomial set/list "I" is not a (strong) Groebner
  basis the result is not canonical.
”

Cheers,
Martin

Daniel Krenn  writes:

On 2017-10-16 18:41, Luca De Feo wrote:

Here's a Sage session:

sage: A. = QQ[]
sage: (x+y).reduce([(x-y), (x+y)])
0
sage: (x-y).reduce([(x-y), (x+y)])
-2*y

The docstring says reduce computes "the normal form of self 
w.r.t. I,

i.e. [...] the remainder of this polynomial with respect to the
polynomials in I".

Does anyone have any idea how this normal form is defined? It 
doesn't

seem to depend on the order of the polynomials in I.


It computes the polynomial "modulo" the given ideal (i.e. 
compute a
Groebner basis of the ideal and reduce the given polynomial by 
this basis).


My guess: If only a list of polynomials is given, then it is 
assumed
that these form a Groebner basis, which seems not to be the 
case.


From the source code, I can only tell it calls Singular's kNF, 
but I
can't find any doc for it. Maybe this function should be 
underscored?


Once we know what it does with lists, the documentation should 
be made

precise.

I am against underscoring, as for ideals as parameter, this is a
standard operation.



--

_pgp: https://keybase.io/martinralbrecht
_www: https://martinralbrecht.wordpress.com
_jab: martinralbre...@jabber.ccc.de
_otr: 47F43D1A 5D68C36F 468BAEBA 640E8856 D7951CCF

--
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 sage-devel@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [sage-devel] What does MPolynomial_libsingular.reduce() do?

[Daniel Krenn]

On 2017-10-16 18:41, Luca De Feo wrote:
> Here's a Sage session:
> 
> sage: A. = QQ[]
> sage: (x+y).reduce([(x-y), (x+y)])
> 0
> sage: (x-y).reduce([(x-y), (x+y)])
> -2*y
> 
> The docstring says reduce computes "the normal form of self w.r.t. I,
> i.e. [...] the remainder of this polynomial with respect to the
> polynomials in I".
> 
> Does anyone have any idea how this normal form is defined? It doesn't
> seem to depend on the order of the polynomials in I.

It computes the polynomial "modulo" the given ideal (i.e. compute a
Groebner basis of the ideal and reduce the given polynomial by this basis).

My guess: If only a list of polynomials is given, then it is assumed
that these form a Groebner basis, which seems not to be the case.

>>From the source code, I can only tell it calls Singular's kNF, but I
> can't find any doc for it. Maybe this function should be underscored?

Once we know what it does with lists, the documentation should be made
precise.

I am against underscoring, as for ideals as parameter, this is a
standard operation.

-- 
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 sage-devel@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: VOTE: inclusion of OpenSSL in Sage

[David Roe]

|X| Yes, we should fully support OpenSSL now, and clarify the licensing
issue.

-- 
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 sage-devel@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[sage-devel] What does MPolynomial_libsingular.reduce() do?

[Luca De Feo]

Hi everyone,

Here's a Sage session:

sage: A. = QQ[]
sage: (x+y).reduce([(x-y), (x+y)])
0
sage: (x-y).reduce([(x-y), (x+y)])
-2*y

The docstring says reduce computes "the normal form of self w.r.t. I,
i.e. [...] the remainder of this polynomial with respect to the
polynomials in I".

Does anyone have any idea how this normal form is defined? It doesn't
seem to depend on the order of the polynomials in I.

>From the source code, I can only tell it calls Singular's kNF, but I
can't find any doc for it. Maybe this function should be underscored?

Cheers,
Luca

-- 
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 sage-devel@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [sage-devel] How do I overwrite comparison for modules?

[Travis Scrimshaw]

Now the question is why are you doing this? You have rich comparison 
behavior (i.e., a partial order) by allowing a return value of 
NotImplemented. So I do not understand why you would do this because it 
comes with a lot of boilerplate code and documentation unless you want to 
remove all use of inequality comparisons. Yet, I do not think that is what 
you are going to do.

Best,
Travis

-- 
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 sage-devel@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: VOTE: inclusion of OpenSSL in Sage

[John Cremona]

|X| Yes, we should fully support OpenSSL now, and clarify the licensing
 issue.

-- 
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 sage-devel@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: VOTE: inclusion of OpenSSL in Sage

[William Stein]

|X| Yes, we should fully support OpenSSL now, and clarify the licensing
issue.

On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 8:22 AM Dima Pasechnik  wrote:

>
>
> On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 11:08:52 AM UTC+1, Emmanuel Charpentier
> wrote:
>
>> [ The first post started too fast... Sorry for the interruption ! ]
>>
>> Following numerous discussions on this list and various Trac tickets*,
>> the issue of maintaining Sage-specific patches to various components of
>> Sage emerged again about the proposed upgrade
>>  of R to 3.4.2 (discussed here
>> ).
>> William again raises
>> 
>> the issue of security.
>>
>> Since Trac#22189 , installation
>> of a systemwide opennssl is recommended (may be too strongly
>> , in the taste of some
>> respectable Sage developers...). The ongoing relicensing of OpenSSL should
>> lift the last barriers to its inclusion in sage. A discussed here
>> ,, the
>> probability of a legal problem related to the incusion of this library in
>> Sage seems infinitesimal.
>>
>> It has beeen furthermore suggested
>>  to
>> add to our licensing (an adaptatin of) the following language, used in Gnu
>> Wget License (GPL) :
>>
>> "Additional permission under GNU GPL version 3 section 7
>>
>> If you modify this program, or any covered work, by linking or combining
>> it with the OpenSSL project's OpenSSL library (or a modified version of
>> that library), containing parts covered by the terms of the OpenSSL or
>> SSLeay licenses, the Free Software Foundation grants you additional
>> permission to convey the resulting work. Corresponding Source for a
>> non-source form of such a combination shall include the source code for the
>> parts of OpenSSL used as well as that of the covered work."
>>
>>
>> The proposed inclusion would entail :
>>
>>- Deprecation of our OpenSSL-avidance patches
>>- Standardization of SSL communications on OpenSSL
>>- At compilation, research of a systemwide OpenSSL
>>   - If found : do nothing
>>   - In not found : installation of OpenSSL in the Sage tree from a
>>   Sage-specific repository (as for most of our standard and optional
>>   packages...).
>>- Licensing clarification
>>
>> In short, we have two options : include OpenSSL now (using language
>> clarification), or wait for the complete OpenSSL relicensing. The exact
>> terms of the vote are therefore :
>>
>> |X| Yes, we should fully support OpenSSL now, and clarify the licensing
>> issue.
>>
>>
>> |_| No, we should wait until OpenSSL finishes fixing their license
>> situation formally.
>>
>> The vote will take place as answers to this post, and will be open until
>> Monday October 23, 14h UTC.
>>
>> Sincerely yours,
>>
>>
>> Emmanuel Charpentier
>>
>> * Perusing the results of searching Trac and sage-devel Google group is
>> enlightening...
>> --
>> Emmanuel Charpentier
>>
>> --
> 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 sage-devel@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
-- 
-- William Stein

-- 
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 sage-devel@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[sage-devel] Re: VOTE: inclusion of OpenSSL in Sage

[Dima Pasechnik]

On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 11:08:52 AM UTC+1, Emmanuel Charpentier 
wrote:
>
> [ The first post started too fast... Sorry for the interruption ! ]
>
> Following numerous discussions on this list and various Trac tickets*, the 
> issue of maintaining Sage-specific patches to various components of Sage 
> emerged again about the proposed upgrade 
>  of R to 3.4.2 (discussed here 
> ). 
> William again raises 
>  the 
> issue of security.
>
> Since Trac#22189 , installation 
> of a systemwide opennssl is recommended (may be too strongly 
> , in the taste of some 
> respectable Sage developers...). The ongoing relicensing of OpenSSL should 
> lift the last barriers to its inclusion in sage. A discussed here 
> ,, the 
> probability of a legal problem related to the incusion of this library in 
> Sage seems infinitesimal.
>
> It has beeen furthermore suggested 
>  to 
> add to our licensing (an adaptatin of) the following language, used in Gnu 
> Wget License (GPL) :
>
> "Additional permission under GNU GPL version 3 section 7
>
> If you modify this program, or any covered work, by linking or combining 
> it with the OpenSSL project's OpenSSL library (or a modified version of 
> that library), containing parts covered by the terms of the OpenSSL or 
> SSLeay licenses, the Free Software Foundation grants you additional 
> permission to convey the resulting work. Corresponding Source for a 
> non-source form of such a combination shall include the source code for the 
> parts of OpenSSL used as well as that of the covered work."
>
>
> The proposed inclusion would entail :
>
>- Deprecation of our OpenSSL-avidance patches
>- Standardization of SSL communications on OpenSSL
>- At compilation, research of a systemwide OpenSSL
>   - If found : do nothing
>   - In not found : installation of OpenSSL in the Sage tree from a 
>   Sage-specific repository (as for most of our standard and optional 
>   packages...).
>- Licensing clarification
>
> In short, we have two options : include OpenSSL now (using language 
> clarification), or wait for the complete OpenSSL relicensing. The exact 
> terms of the vote are therefore :
>
> |X| Yes, we should fully support OpenSSL now, and clarify the licensing 
> issue.
>
> |_| No, we should wait until OpenSSL finishes fixing their license 
> situation formally.
>
> The vote will take place as answers to this post, and will be open until 
> Monday October 23, 14h UTC.
>
> Sincerely yours,
>
> 
> Emmanuel Charpentier
>
> * Perusing the results of searching Trac and sage-devel Google group is 
> enlightening...
> --
> Emmanuel Charpentier
>
>

-- 
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 sage-devel@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [sage-devel] python3 status

[Erik Bray]

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 5:56 PM, Frédéric Chapoton  wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have reached this point with the ugly python3 experimental branch
> "public/python3-experiment-8.1.b7":
>
>
> ┌┐
> │ SageMath version 8.1.beta7, Release Date: 2017-10-03   │
> │ Type "notebook()" for the browser-based notebook interface.│
> │ Type "help()" for help.│
> └┘
> ┏┓
> ┃ Warning: this is a prerelease version, and it may be unstable. ┃
> ┗┛
> sage: 3*3
> 9
> sage: parent(_)
> Integer Ring
>
>
> Cool, no ? Or maybe nobody cares ?
>
> Many things are still not working. The cmp problem has been much reduced,
> but still not fully fixed. On our way is a large-scale unicode problem, and
> maybe another large scale hash problem.

Very cool. I still hope to help out more with this, especially the
string problems which I'm practiced at dealing with.  I was starting
to several weeks ago when I tried to reproduce the Python 3 issues
from scratch, but then got side-tracked, and then went on a long trip,
so now I'll need to start over again on a Python 3 build.

-- 
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 sage-devel@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: VOTE: inclusion of OpenSSL in Sage

[Erik Bray]

On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Emmanuel Charpentier
 wrote:
> In short, we have two options : include OpenSSL now (using language
> clarification), or wait for the complete OpenSSL relicensing. The exact
> terms of the vote are therefore :
>
> |X| Yes, we should fully support OpenSSL now, and clarify the licensing
> issue.
>
> |_| No, we should wait until OpenSSL finishes fixing their license situation
> formally.

Yes, but it's terrible in the first place that we have to include
OpenSSL "in Sage" at all.  As long as the system library is used by
default though then I don't mind.

-- 
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 sage-devel@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [sage-devel] How do I overwrite comparison for modules?

[Simon Brandhorst]

It works. Thank you :-).

On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 2:28:00 PM UTC+2, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>
> Remove the @richcmp_method decorator. 
>

-- 
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 sage-devel@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [sage-devel] How do I overwrite comparison for modules?

[Jeroen Demeyer]

Remove the @richcmp_method decorator.

--
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 sage-devel@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[sage-devel] How do I overwrite comparison for modules?

[Simon Brandhorst]

Hi all,

I want to redefine comparison for modules by using python like comparisons
__eq__, __lt__ etc.

See #23978
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/23978

So I have deleted the __richcmp__ methods and added a method

def __eq__(self, other):
return type(self) == type(other)


I get the following error in sage:

See #23978
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/23978

sage: A = ZZ^2
sage: A == A
---
AttributeErrorTraceback (most recent call last)
 in ()
> 1 A == A

/home/agag/sbrandhorst/sage/sage/src/sage/structure/richcmp.pyx in 
sage.structure.richcmp.slot_tp_richcompare 
(build/cythonized/sage/structure/richcmp.c:1414)()
110 Function to put in the ``tp_richcompare`` slot.
111 """
--> 112 return self.__richcmp__(other, op)
113 
114 

/home/agag/sbrandhorst/sage/sage/src/sage/structure/category_object.pyx in 
sage.structure.category_object.CategoryObject.__getattr__ 
(build/cythonized/sage/structure/category_object.c:7910)()
846 AttributeError: 'PrimeNumbers_with_category' object has 
no attribute 'sadfasdf'
847 """
--> 848 return self.getattr_from_category(name)
849 
850 cdef getattr_from_category(self, name):

/home/agag/sbrandhorst/sage/sage/src/sage/structure/category_object.pyx in 
sage.structure.category_object.CategoryObject.getattr_from_category 
(build/cythonized/sage/structure/category_object.c:8073)()
861 cls = self._category.parent_class
862 
--> 863 attr = getattr_from_other_class(self, cls, name)
864 self.__cached_methods[name] = attr
865 return attr

/home/agag/sbrandhorst/sage/sage/src/sage/cpython/getattr.pyx in 
sage.cpython.getattr.getattr_from_other_class 
(build/cythonized/sage/cpython/getattr.c:1831)()
247 dummy_error_message.cls = type(self)
248 dummy_error_message.name = name
--> 249 raise dummy_attribute_error
250 cdef PyObject* attr = _PyType_Lookup(cls, name)
251 if attr is NULL:

AttributeError: 'FreeModule_ambient_pid_with_category' object has no 
attribute '__richcmp__'


So somehow it insists on using __richcmp__. How can I teach it to use the 
python style methods?

-- 
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 sage-devel@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [sage-devel] A couple R tickets need review.

[Emmanuel Charpentier]

Indeed. I don't dispute that.

But the "security" point made by William, and the fact that upstream 
*wants* https-enabled communications stands. BTW, it also stands for "our" 
Python...

--
Emmanuel Charpentier

Le lundi 16 octobre 2017 10:34:28 UTC+2, Jean-Pierre Flori a écrit :
>
> Note that we don't disable https support, we just let R compile it is not 
> available...
>

-- 
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 sage-devel@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[sage-devel] Re: VOTE: inclusion of OpenSSL in Sage

[Emmanuel Charpentier]

[ The first post started too fast... Sorry for the interruption ! ]

Following numerous discussions on this list and various Trac tickets*, the 
issue of maintaining Sage-specific patches to various components of Sage 
emerged again about the proposed upgrade 
 of R to 3.4.2 (discussed here 
). William 
again raises 
 the 
issue of security.

Since Trac#22189 , installation of 
a systemwide opennssl is recommended (may be too strongly 
, in the taste of some respectable 
Sage developers...). The ongoing relicensing of OpenSSL should lift the 
last barriers to its inclusion in sage. A discussed here 
,, the 
probability of a legal problem related to the incusion of this library in 
Sage seems infinitesimal.

It has beeen furthermore suggested 
 to 
add to our licensing (an adaptatin of) the following language, used in Gnu 
Wget License (GPL) :

"Additional permission under GNU GPL version 3 section 7

If you modify this program, or any covered work, by linking or combining it 
with the OpenSSL project's OpenSSL library (or a modified version of that 
library), containing parts covered by the terms of the OpenSSL or SSLeay 
licenses, the Free Software Foundation grants you additional permission to 
convey the resulting work. Corresponding Source for a non-source form of 
such a combination shall include the source code for the parts of OpenSSL 
used as well as that of the covered work."


The proposed inclusion would entail :

   - Deprecation of our OpenSSL-avidance patches
   - Standardization of SSL communications on OpenSSL
   - At compilation, research of a systemwide OpenSSL
  - If found : do nothing
  - In not found : installation of OpenSSL in the Sage tree from a 
  Sage-specific repository (as for most of our standard and optional 
  packages...).
   - Licensing clarification
   
In short, we have two options : include OpenSSL now (using language 
clarification), or wait for the complete OpenSSL relicensing. The exact 
terms of the vote are therefore :

|_| Yes, we should fully support OpenSSL now, and clarify the licensing 
issue.

|_| No, we should wait until OpenSSL finishes fixing their license 
situation formally.

The vote will take place as answers to this post, and will be open until 
Monday October 23, 14h UTC.

Sincerely yours,


Emmanuel Charpentier

* Perusing the results of searching Trac and sage-devel Google group is 
enlightening...
--
Emmanuel Charpentier

-- 
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 sage-devel@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[sage-devel] VOTE: inclusion of OpenSSL in Sage

[Emmanuel Charpentier]

Following numerous discussions on this list an various tickets, the issue 
of maintaining Sage-specific patches to various components of Sage emerged 
again about the proposed upgrade  
of R to 3.4.2 (discussed here 
).

Since Trac#22189 , installation of 
a systemwide opennssl is recommended (may be too strongly 
, in the taste of some respectable 
Sage developers...).

The proposed inclusion would entail :
Deprecation of our OpenSSL-avidance patches
Sta
At compilation, research of a systemwide OpenSSL
If found : do nothing

-- 
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 sage-devel@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [sage-devel] python3 status

[Jeroen Demeyer]

On 2017-10-14 11:50, John Cremona wrote:

How can we be sure that new code witten by people (like me) who are
not python2/3 experts does not regress?


I think it's also important to mention that Cython is quite different 
from plain Python in this regard. Cython generally tries to be 
compatible with both Python 2 and Python 3. This means that some Python 
2 only code like xrange() or dict.iteritems() works in Cython with 
Python 3. Also, some Python 3 only code works on Python 2. For example, 
keyword-only arguments, f-strings, new super(), yield from.


--
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 sage-devel@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [sage-devel] A couple R tickets need review.

[Jean-Pierre Flori]

Note that we don't disable https support, we just let R compile it is not 
available...

-- 
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 sage-devel@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.