Hi Jaap, I went ahead and fixed (I hope!) the doctest below. (I just added a prec flag, and made the doctests use it, so this should avoid any sort of architecture-dependent issues). Could you try this out and let me know if it works, and then give the patch a positive review? Thanks!
If anyone else is seeing this doctest failure, could you also try it out? (I don't see it on my machine, so I'm guessing this works, but I can't be sure.) Patch is here: http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/2201 -cc > [EMAIL PROTECTED] sage-2.10.2.alpha0]$ ./sage -t > devel/sage-main/sage/rings/number_field/number_field.py > sage -t > devel/sage-main/sage/rings/number_field/number_field.py********************************************************************** > File "number_field.py", line 2087: > sage: F.reduced_basis() > Expected: > [1, alpha, alpha^2 - 15*alpha + 1, alpha^3 - 16*alpha^2 + 469*alpha + > 267109] > Got: > [1, alpha, alpha^2 - 15*alpha, alpha^3 - 16*alpha^2 + 469*alpha + 267109] > ********************************************************************** > 1 items had failures: > 1 of 6 in __main__.example_60 > ***Test Failed*** 1 failures. > For whitespace errors, see the file .doctest_number_field.py > [33.8 s] > exit code: 256 > > > Jaap --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
