> Has FLINT been changed? I see a PR here but it is still open
You're totally right. I thought that it was already closed there! Thanks
for pointing this out.
Note that I don't have a very strong opinion on this matter, I'm only
worrying about preventing potential bugs.
David A.
Le lundi
On Mon, 12 Sept 2022 at 16:24, davida...@gmail.com
wrote:
>
> > Why don't we create a B+ and a B-?
>
> This was one of the idea of the ticket
> https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/34521. A new option to the bernoulli
> function was added ("plus=False"), giving the option to the user to choose
>
On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 11:24 AM davida...@gmail.com
wrote:
>
> > Why don't we create a B+ and a B-?
>
> This was one of the idea of the ticket
> https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/34521. A new option to the bernoulli
> function was added ("plus=False"), giving the option to the user to choose
On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 9:49 AM Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 2:21 PM Jeremy Tan wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps I need your help, William. The associated trac ticket
> > https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/34521 was marked invalid offhand by the
> > release manager Frédéric Chapoton
On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 2:21 PM Jeremy Tan wrote:
>
> Perhaps I need your help, William. The associated trac ticket
> https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/34521 was marked invalid offhand by the
> release manager Frédéric Chapoton despite me managing to fix all the doctests
> simply and the ticket
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/34521
Jeremy Tan / Parcly Taxel
On Sunday, 11 September 2022 at 21:50:32 UTC+8 davida...@gmail.com wrote:
> When you open a trac ticket, post the link here, we will continue the
> discussion there.
>
> Le dimanche 11 septembre 2022 à 00:58:07 UTC-4,
When you open a trac ticket, post the link here, we will continue the
discussion there.
Le dimanche 11 septembre 2022 à 00:58:07 UTC-4, redde...@gmail.com a écrit :
> Considering the subsequent replies to my proposal, I'm perfectly happy
> with implementing B_1 = +½ in Sage with the 1-year
Considering the subsequent replies to my proposal, I'm perfectly happy with
implementing B_1 = +½ in Sage with the 1-year deprecation policy. During
the deprecation period I would expect an extra boolean keyword argument to
bernoulli() enforcing B_1 = +½ if true and relying on the backend
On Sat, 10 Sept 2022 at 18:49, William Stein wrote:
>
> On Sat, Sep 10, 2022 at 10:04 AM davida...@gmail.com
> wrote:
> >
> > > I'm curious if the change breaks any code anywhere else in Sage (e.g.,
> > > maybe for computing q-expansions of modular forms?)...
> >
> > You guessed right. I did a
On Sat, Sep 10, 2022 at 10:04 AM davida...@gmail.com
wrote:
>
> > I'm curious if the change breaks any code anywhere else in Sage (e.g.,
> > maybe for computing q-expansions of modular forms?)...
>
> You guessed right. I did a quick local change to the bernoulli function and
> it indeed breaks
On Sat, Sep 10, 2022 at 7:17 AM Jeremy Tan wrote:
>
> My name is Jeremy Tan, or Parcly Taxel in the furry/MLP art scene. As of this
> post I am a recent graduate from the National University of Singapore with
> two degrees in maths and computer science.
>
> Over the past month I had a good read
My name is Jeremy Tan, or Parcly Taxel in the furry/MLP art scene. As of
this post I am a recent graduate from the National University of Singapore
with two degrees in maths and computer science.
Over the past month I had a good read of Peter Luschny's Bernoulli
Manifesto
12 matches
Mail list logo
