Re: [sage-devel] Re: How much do we support the casual user

On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 8:12 PM saad khalid wrote: > Have we come to any conclusions on what steps should be taken after this > topic? What seems to be the concensus? Or, at the very least, could someone > give a listing of the options we have so that we can give it a poll or

[sage-devel] Re: How much do we support the casual user

Have we come to any conclusions on what steps should be taken after this topic? What seems to be the concensus? Or, at the very least, could someone give a listing of the options we have so that we can give it a poll or something similar? On Monday, April 2, 2018 at 2:58:36 AM UTC-5, Sebastian

Re: [sage-devel] PEP draft to fix Python function classes

Hi Jeroen, Not posting on python-ideas for now since this is a more 1-on-1 message and I don't want to add to the noise there. I've read your PEP a few times now, and some of the discussion on Python-ideas, and I think it all pretty much makes sense to me. The one thing I keep questioning is

[sage-devel] Question about number_field_elements_from_algebraics (Ticket 20181)

Dear all, In order to get algebraic polyhedra using the normaliz backend [1], we modify the function number_field_elements_from_algebraics of qqbar.py to give embedded number fields and also accept a larger class of algebraic numbers, say coming from cyclotomic fields [2]. For example, this

Re: [sage-devel] Re: PY_NEW(Integer) and Integer.__new__(Integer)

On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 10:27 AM, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote: > I thought PY_NEW was to be avoided (except for classes overriding tp_new). > See https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/17668 and >

[sage-devel] Re: PY_NEW(Integer) and Integer.__new__(Integer)

I thought PY_NEW was to be avoided (except for classes overriding tp_new). See https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/17668 and https://github.com/cython/cython/wiki/FAQ#can-cython-create-objects-or-apply-operators-to-locally-created-objects-as-pure-c-code On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 9:41:17 AM UTC+2,