2009/6/15 John Cremona <john.crem...@gmail.com>: > 2009/6/15 Nick Alexander <ncalexan...@gmail.com>: >> >>>> That is on old issue: L.primes_above(6) tries to sort the primes but >>>> there are tie-break situations where the order is not determined; >>>> and >>>> pari's output is often different on 32-or 64-bit machines. Unless >>>> someone can come up with a reliable way of sorting primes in a number >>>> field (currently "sorted by residue degree first, then by >>>> underlying prime (or equivalently, by norm).") this doctest >>>> should be changed so as not to depend on the order. >> >> I even changed the doctest, thinking you had made this unique. Let's >> just verify the sorted list is correct, and not worry about the >> ordering. > > The weird thing is that when I now look at the code for > primes_above(), it does not do the sorting I described in the > docstring -- though I clearly remember writing the code! I *am* > therefore going to change primes_above() to do what it says, but also > change the doctest which failed so that it is independent of the > ordering.
Patch up at #6303: http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/6303 John > > John > >> >> Nick >> >> >> >> > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
