On Wed, 2022-04-13 at 19:36 -0700, ph h wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> At the top of 'sage/src/bin/sage' script:
>
>
> # WARNING: this function is copy/pasted from both src/bin/sage-env and
> # the top-level "sage" script. Please keep them synchronized.
> resolvelinks() {
>
>
> Is there any other way
Dear All,
At the top of 'sage/src/bin/sage' script:
# WARNING: this function is copy/pasted from both src/bin/sage-env and
# the top-level "sage" script. Please keep them synchronized.
resolvelinks() {
Is there any other way to keep them in sync without using Copy?
Just curiosity.
Regards,
See https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/30484 - help is welcome in writing
instructions for our documentation
On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 1:33:14 AM UTC-7 hohoa...@gmail.com wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> There was a related discussion here:
>
>
Yes, you just need to change it back to "need review" so that it can be
reviewed.
Le mercredi 13 avril 2022 à 03:54:33 UTC-4, adarsh.k...@gmail.com a écrit :
> Can I make these changes in https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/33688 as
> discussed? The ticket has not been closed yet
>
> On
Just for reference, Sage already has divmod() (e.g.
https://sagecell.sagemath.org/?q=owmsez) and returns a tuple of Sage
integers, so maybe we already do? I don't know about the magic method
though. quo_rem() was the one new to me, and doesn't actually appear to be
defined - did you maybe
Dear All,
There was a related discussion here:
https://ask.sagemath.org/question/43240/sagemath-and-vscode/
Is there any way to debug SageMath using VScode client on Windows and
server on "remote WSL" (on the same machine)?
Your advice is much appreciated.
Regards,
phiho
--
You received
By the way, I opened https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/33703 after a
discussion on https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/R3r3G_Qrllo.
If I am successful, we will test it to see if there are any performance
improvements over the sequential version, else we can remove that line.
Is that fine?
On
Can I make these changes in https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/33688 as
discussed? The ticket has not been closed yet
On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:44:36 PM UTC+5:30 David Coudert wrote:
> You are right, this can be removed too.
> And I'm not sure a parallel version of Boruvka's algorithm is
You are right, this can be removed too.
And I'm not sure a parallel version of Boruvka's algorithm is needed. We
already have a large number of spanning tree algorithms.
On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 7:56:20 PM UTC+2 patrat...@gmail.com wrote:
> Just wondering if the third TODO (Randomized
Thanks! I have opened https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/33703 and CCed you
On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 11:27:46 AM UTC+5:30
jonatha...@googlemail.com wrote:
> Sure. Since this is written in cython, using
> https://cython.readthedocs.io/en/latest/src/userguide/parallelism.html
> might be a
10 matches
Mail list logo
