On Thursday, June 8, 2023 at 4:40:06 PM UTC-7 Michael Orlitzky wrote:
Pip [...] can't do anything with the non-python software on which sage
subsists.
To make sage-via-pip work, we'll have to maintain a new pseudo-
distribution on pypi that either ships people pre-built wheels or wraps
On Thu, 2023-06-08 at 14:09 -0700, Matthias Koeppe wrote:
>
> *D. *As a consequence of B and C, it was *impossible to build or run parts
> of the Sage library.* And it is *impossible to install the whole Sage
> library using Python infrastructure* (pip). (Yes, I know that conda exists.)
>
Of
Dear all,
I proposed the modularization project three years ago, in May 2020, in the
post https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/M9QTWtln6zU/m/UHwkrmTKBQAJ
The most recent substantial discussions on sage-devel on this topic took
place in Oct/Nov 2021; and I gave a presentation on it in June
On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 9:59:28 PM UTC-7 Kwankyu Lee wrote:
We may also introduce a block tag like ":: optional - sage.modules
sage.rings.finite_rings" that applies to a block of lines.
Quick note that I'm all in favor of introducing a mechanism for such block
tags; it's of course a
Hi Travis,
Happy to see that you are curious regarding the modularization project, but
I don't think it's a good approach to start this discussion with claims
that sound authoritative ("nobody will actually maintain", "does not
scale", "nearly all end users", etc.) and a policy proposal.
I'd
On Mon, Jun 5, 2023 at 8:19 PM Brent W. Baccala wrote:
>
> Hi -
>
> I don't think giac can handle more than 15 variables in a Gröbner basis
> calculation.
>
> This limitation isn't really documented anywhere, but if you look in giac's
> src/cocoa.cc around lines 490-500, function swap_indices
Just ... wow. I know I don't get much of a say given my lack of recent
development activity, but this level of granularity does seem absurd. It
would certainly be a (psychological) barrier to development - how do you
know which modules some random doctest you want to include depends on? - as
