Comment #11 on issue 1477 by Toon.Verstraelen: Printing with double
subscripts
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1477
I've put some initial patches on github. The pretty printer should be more
or less
OK. Tests included. Have fun.
Updates:
Status: NeedsReview
Comment #8 on issue 1493 by ryanlists: factor a minus 1 out of fractions in
simplify
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1493
(No comment was entered for this change.)
--
You received this message because you are listed in the owner
or CC
Comment #8 on issue 1487 by ryanlists: fcode: print sympy expressions as
Fortran code
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1487
I think two printers with as much core in common as possible makes a lot of
sense. I
see myself using this code in the future and I see Fortran code
Comment #12 on issue 1477 by goodrich.ben: Printing with double subscripts
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1477
Looks good to me, although someone who understands Python really well
should review
it. Printing in these odd cases is certainly better than it used to be in
0.6.4,
Comment #13 on issue 1477 by Toon.Verstraelen: Printing with double
subscripts
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1477
That shouldn't be too difficult to handle, but it would be wise to let one
of the
regular sympy developers take a look at the current changes. Otherwise, it
Comment #9 on issue 1487 by Toon.Verstraelen: fcode: print sympy
expressions as Fortran code
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1487
Thanks for the hints and examples. I have the impression you did also use
common
subexpression elimination for this example. The plan is to have
Comment #10 on issue 1487 by ryanlists: fcode: print sympy expressions as
Fortran code
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1487
That sounds like a great plan. Thanks for all your work on this issue.
--
You received this message because you are listed in the owner
or CC fields of
I was looking at the status of my issues today and saw that 1493 was listed
as accepted. Unless someone has figured out how to make it pass the tests
in test_solvers.py, I think my patch breaks tests. I changed the status
back to NeedsReview.
Sorry if I did this in error. If you figured out
Just to be clear, the patch for issue 1495 doesn't fix issue 1493, it makes
it so 1493 fails on my computer so that I might try and debug it.
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 8:30 AM, Ryan Krauss ryanli...@gmail.com wrote:
I was looking at the status of my issues today and saw that 1493 was listed
as
The routines in solve() for solving for a function or a derivative
could probably be adapted to diff (and others?) pretty easily. See
commit 5e5a333da78a3af743e5dc5f0130448aaea7c85a.
Aaron Meurer
On Jun 28, 2009, at 7:11 AM, Alan Bromborsky wrote:
I tried this:
from sympy import *
x
Thank you for quick reply.
What do you mean by lack of '-'?
Here is a integral in file:
smart-net.pl/calka.py
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
sympy group.
To post to this group, send email to
Alan,
I brought this issue up a while back and submitted a patch that
fixed the same issue in solve. I haven't gotten around to writing the
same piece of code for diff, but this is on my to do list for the same
reasons as yours. I think the fundamental issue is that Symbols are
treated as
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 4:07 PM, David Joynerwdjoy...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Priit Laesplaes...@gmail.com wrote:
I have updated the PDE-separation branch again, it is now in
'pde-separate-v2'.
In case you have sympy's sources already checked out:
$ git remote
13 matches
Mail list logo
