On Sun, 2 Aug 2020 at 18:49, Gagandeep Singh (B17CS021)
wrote:
>
> I read the original post and I think the idea of introducing SEPs seems to be
> really useful. Since, I am quite involved with `stats` module and was
> thinking to add some new features to it to make it more powerful and useful
Got it. Thanks.
On Sunday, August 2, 2020 at 12:00:47 PM UTC+3, Oscar wrote:
>
> On Sun, 2 Aug 2020 at 06:32, Paul Royik >
> wrote:
> >
> > Do you mean that now it is not safe to use evaluate=True in one thread
> and evaluate=False in another?
>
> It is always fine to use
On 8/2/20 12:16 PM, Oscar Benjamin wrote:
SEPs (SIPs?)
How about "SyEPs" or "SymEPs" to make sure they are clearly distinct
from a possible SciPy equivalent? I am sort of partial to "SymEPs"
because I like the sound of "sym,E,P's" if it is said that way.
--
Dr. Jonathan Gutow
Chemistry
Hi,
I read the original post and I think the idea of introducing SEPs seems to
be really useful. Since, I am quite involved with `stats` module and was
thinking to add some new features to it to make it more powerful and useful
to the people working in the area of statistics. I wanted to know
On Sun, 2 Aug 2020 at 14:54, Jonathan Gutow wrote:
>
> I think the Plone PLIP implementation is the best of the two. Here's my brief
> understanding (details at:
> https://docs.plone.org/develop/coredev/docs/plips.html):
>
> PLIPs are implemented as issues in the github repository. This
On Sun, 2 Aug 2020 at 14:48, David Bailey wrote:
>
> I am amazed that you and other SymPy developers find time to develop the
> software after they have finished evaluating and responding to all the offers
> from students. Are you sure the time you all spend on this doesn't cost more
> than
I think the Plone PLIP implementation is the best of the two. Here's my
brief understanding (details at:
https://docs.plone.org/develop/coredev/docs/plips.html):
* PLIPs are implemented as issues in the github repository. This
facilitates conversion to a simple bugfix or small enhancement
On 02/08/2020 00:23, Oscar Benjamin wrote:
Hi all,
I've been thinking for some time that there should be more
coordination amongst sympy contributors and more involvement with the
broader sympy community in the general direction that sympy takes. I
want to propose the idea of SymPy Enhancement
Hey this is Rahul pawar. I m also new to this project can someone guide us
both
On Sun, 2 Aug 2020, 2:37 pm Prakhar Agarwal,
wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> I'm Prakhar Agarwal, I am going to get enrolled in First year of Bachelor
> of Technology.
>
> I've been coding in Python for last 1 year and
On Sun, 2 Aug 2020 at 04:58, Jason Moore wrote:
>
> I agree with this. SEPs would be a net positive. They seem to work well with
> other projects.
>
> Question: How do we know what changes require SEPs and what don't?
I would say that for now at least it shouldn't be a requirement to
produce a
On Sun, 2 Aug 2020 at 01:42, Jonathan Gutow wrote:
>
> Although I am probably one of those "put in episodic work only on
> projects that interest me" people. Other major open-source projects
> (e.g. SageMath and Plone) I have done pieces for have similar structures
> and I thought they were
Hello everyone,
I'm Prakhar Agarwal, I am going to get enrolled in First year of Bachelor
of Technology.
I've been coding in Python for last 1 year and I love it because of its
ease of learning its syntax and also because of its use huge potential in
scientific computing.
Although I'm not
On Sun, 2 Aug 2020 at 06:32, Paul Royik wrote:
>
> Do you mean that now it is not safe to use evaluate=True in one thread and
> evaluate=False in another?
It is always fine to use evaluate=True/False. The problem is with
using the global evaluate flag:
In [7]: with evaluate(False):
...:
13 matches
Mail list logo
