William Stein wrote: > On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 11:31 AM, Robert Bradshaw > <rober...@math.washington.edu> wrote: >> On Jan 17, 2009, at 6:54 AM, mabshoff wrote: >> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: Yann Laigle-Chapuy <SNIP> >>> Date: Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 4:06 AM >>> Subject: [Sage Bug Report] or not? >>> To: Michael Abshoff < SNIP > >>> >>> >>> Hi, >>> is the following a feature or a bug? >>> >>> sage: 0*log(0) >>> ... >>> ValueError: self must be positive >>> >>> ok, but >>> >>> sage: f=x*log(x) >>> sage: f(0) >>> 0 >> I would say that's a bug. Probably an overly-naive simplification. >> Also, note > > It's a bug, but I think there is not much of a point in even reporting > it to trac, since it is already fixed in the new symbolics.... which > Burcin and I wrote 5 *months* ago, and which still aren't the default > in Sage. >
Well, depending on how long before the new symbolics is the default, I'd say it's worth reporting and fixing, especially if it's easy. Jason --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
