On Mar 3, 6:21 pm, Robert Kern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mensanator wrote: > > On Mar 3, 4:08 pm, Robert Kern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Mensanator wrote: > >>> On Mar 3, 2:49 pm, Carl Banks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>> It's just a bug--probably sympy is messing with the internals of the > >>>> random number generator. It would be a simple fix. Instead of > >>>> b****ing about it, file a bug report. > >>> I did. > >>>> Or better yet, submit a patch. > >>> I would if I knew what the problem was. > >> Did you even try to figure it out? It took me all of 5 minutes to find the > >> mistake. > > > Could I trouble you to share? Then I could continue my testing. > > I posted the patch on the bug tracker: > > http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=729
Thanks, I think I actually figured out how to use it. > > >>> I posted it here because someone recommended it. > >>> I'm simply un-recommending it. > >> It was a mistake, an easily remedied mistake, > > > But I didn't know that (and still don't). > > >> not a big unchangeable design decision. > > > I didn't know that either. For all I know, I might have to > > wait for the next version, and who knows when that will be? > > The point is that you didn't try to figure it out. Give me a break, I'm not a developer, just an end user. > And you assumed the worst Wasn't my assumption correct? That it really was messing outside it's domain? > rather than giving anyone the benefit of the doubt. As in "maybe it only fails for me"? Was I crying that the sky was falling? > You didn't even wait to get a response from the package > maintainer I have no experience with those web sites. I think this is the first time I was able to successfully report a bug and have no clue what the turnaround time is. > about how serious the issue was The symptom was serious although the fix was simple. > before you came here to un-recommend it. As an end user, I get most of my information here. Since I saw the link to sympy here on this newsgroup, I thought it would be irresponsible to file a bug report without simultaneously mentioning it here. > > All software has bugs. > > Good software has bugs. Are bugs off-topic here? > > Finding a single bug in a package is not sufficient cause to warn people away > as > if it had the plague. It DID have the plague. It affected anything else that tried to use random numbers. > > >> If you want to recommend against sympy as a package, there is a larger > >> burden of proof that you have yet to meet. > > > What kind of burden of proof must one have to recommend it in the > > first place? > > Significantly less. "It was useful to me," is sufficient. Really? That's sufficient? Ok, but how is my pointing out a verifyable problem that affects the entire system not a sufficient burden of proof against recommending the package? Or should I just have worded it differently? Aren't I at least going to get credit for having found it? > > -- > Robert Kern > > "I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma > that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it > had > an underlying truth." > -- Umberto Eco -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
