Re: [sage-devel] Sage Python 3 proposal

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 1:00 PM, Daniel Krenn wrote: > On 2017-06-01 16:35, William Stein wrote: >> The second oldest is "notebook -- should be able export (=print) to >> latex/pdf/dvi", which could be finally closed when Jupyter notebook is >> the default notebook > > Does typeset

Re: [sage-devel] Sage Python 3 proposal

On 2017-06-01 16:35, William Stein wrote: > The second oldest is "notebook -- should be able export (=print) to > latex/pdf/dvi", which could be finally closed when Jupyter notebook is > the default notebook Does typeset output meanwhile work? (I ask as, having e.g. show(x^2) in a Jupyter

Re: [sage-devel] Sage Python 3 proposal

On Friday, June 2, 2017 at 2:01:25 AM UTC-7, François wrote: > > > Actually there has been some work on enabling sage to be built and > installed in a prefix that isn’t under SAGE_ROOT. This is why we now > have sage-env-config. > So you could do a run of configure of sage with python2 and

Re: [sage-devel] Sage Python 3 proposal

> On 3/06/2017, at 18:04, Ralf Stephan wrote: > > On Friday, June 2, 2017 at 10:48:19 PM UTC+2, François wrote: > Only used by sage. Those are the components linked to it > > Naive questions (maybe irrelevant): Shouldn't it be only libs/pynac > that is linked to libpynac?

Re: [sage-devel] Sage Python 3 proposal

On Friday, June 2, 2017 at 10:48:19 PM UTC+2, François wrote: > > Only used by sage. Those are the components linked to it Naive questions (maybe irrelevant): Shouldn't it be only libs/pynac that is linked to libpynac? Are the direct links from other Sage modules really necessary? Should they

Re: [sage-devel] Sage Python 3 proposal

> On 3/06/2017, at 05:28, Nils Bruin wrote: > > On Friday, June 2, 2017 at 2:54:22 AM UTC-6, Ralf Stephan wrote: > No. See > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/44322187/binary-using-both-python-c-api-version-2-and-3 > > But then we need to either build libraries libpynac2 and

Re: [sage-devel] Sage Python 3 proposal

On Friday, June 2, 2017 at 2:54:22 AM UTC-6, Ralf Stephan wrote: > > No. See > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/44322187/binary-using-both-python-c-api-version-2-and-3 > > But then we need to either build libraries libpynac2 and libpynac3 or put libpynac somewhere in local/lib/python*. Do we

Re: [sage-devel] Sage Python 3 proposal

> On 1/06/2017, at 23:27, Kwankyu Lee wrote: > > I also thought about building both py2+3 at the same time, it would be a > great debugging help during the transition if you can easily run both. Then > in 3 years we'll just cut out the py2 part and be done with it... > >

Re: [sage-devel] Sage Python 3 proposal

one way or the other, underlinking does not work on Cygwin. On Friday, June 2, 2017 at 9:54:22 AM UTC+1, Ralf Stephan wrote: > > No. See > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/44322187/binary-using-both-python-c-api-version-2-and-3 > > On Friday, June 2, 2017 at 8:35:57 AM UTC+2, François wrote:

Re: [sage-devel] Sage Python 3 proposal

> On 2/06/2017, at 20:54, Ralf Stephan wrote: > > No. See > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/44322187/binary-using-both-python-c-api-version-2-and-3 So much for that then. This email may be confidential and subject to legal privilege, it may not reflect the views of the

Re: [sage-devel] Sage Python 3 proposal

No. See https://stackoverflow.com/questions/44322187/binary-using-both-python-c-api-version-2-and-3 On Friday, June 2, 2017 at 8:35:57 AM UTC+2, François wrote: > > > > On 2/06/2017, at 17:57, Ralf Stephan > wrote: > > > > On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 12:29:23 PM UTC+2,

Re: [sage-devel] Sage Python 3 proposal

> On 2/06/2017, at 17:57, Ralf Stephan wrote: > > On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 12:29:23 PM UTC+2, François wrote: > .. Installing pynac for both python at the same time > means rethinking its packaging. > > As a possible alternative, would avoiding those calls that differ

Re: [sage-devel] Sage Python 3 proposal

On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 12:29:23 PM UTC+2, François wrote: > > .. Installing pynac for both python at the same time > means rethinking its packaging. As a possible alternative, would avoiding those calls that differ between version 2 and 3 of the C API help? It might not be so difficult

Re: [sage-devel] Sage Python 3 proposal

Erik: > I've been thinking of cleaning up the main `sage` command anyways, > though it would be good to transition to a new, better UI for it as > well. > > For the top level of the `sage` command I wouldn't use Python. For > example, for things like `sage -sh` (or whatever the future equivalent

Re: [sage-devel] Sage Python 3 proposal

On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 4:01 PM, William Stein wrote: > > > On Thursday, June 1, 2017, Erik Bray wrote: >> >> On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 10:00 PM, John H Palmieri >> wrote: >> > I have a proposal for making the transition to use Sage

Re: [sage-devel] Sage Python 3 proposal

On Thursday, June 1, 2017, Erik Bray wrote: > On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 10:00 PM, John H Palmieri > > wrote: > > I have a proposal for making the transition to use Sage with Python 3. > See > > https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/23119 for

Re: [sage-devel] Sage Python 3 proposal

I am currently doing a python2+python3 build in sage-on-gentoo. I need none of the hack currently studied for the script, they may end up being counter productive for sage-on-distro, we’ll have to see. Doing a python2+python3 at the same time in the same prefix is challenging because of brial

Re: [sage-devel] Sage Python 3 proposal

On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 10:00 PM, John H Palmieri wrote: > I have a proposal for making the transition to use Sage with Python 3. See > https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/23119 for details (and a branch which > works, at least in my limited testing). The proposal: > > - Have

[sage-devel] Sage Python 3 proposal

I have a proposal for making the transition to use Sage with Python 3. See https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/23119 for details (and a branch which works, at least in my limited testing). The proposal: - Have a new command "sage3" which runs Sage using Python 3. - If you build Sage with the