I already gave this a verbal +1, but does anyone know what happens if you fork a sage process with open pexpect interface?
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 10:26 AM, William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 10:21 AM, Nick Alexander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> Anyway, since every single person voted +1 and nobody voted -1 or >>> had issues, I declare this package officially accepted. >> >> -1! That was fast. > > > It was a full 3 days. > > >> What happened to the inclusion procedures? >> In particular, I am >> interested to know what other options were investigated and why >> pyprocessing is considered the best possible solution right now. >> > > This is discussed at great length in the pages that I linked to, since > pyprocessing passed the inclusion procedure for inclusion in standard > Python already. Please read thinks at the top of this thread. > > I'll reopen the voting for two more days. > > -- William > > > > I' --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
