I'm not disagreeing, I just don't know how to quickly change that. If someone can give me some tips I will at least patch the spkgs.
-Marshall On Jul 31, 4:21 pm, William Stein <wst...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 2:04 PM, Dr. David Kirkby > <david.kir...@onetel.net>wrote: > > > > > > > Marshall Hampton wrote: > > > I agree, that doesn't sound good. At the moment, I just want to check > > > out the sandpile functionality, so I don't think I will wade in and > > > try to improve glpk, or bug the author to do so. > > > > On the positive side, I think I now have packages that install > > > correctly, at least on my own mac. They are at: > > > >http://www.d.umn.edu/~mhampton/4ti2.p0.spkg<http://www.d.umn.edu/%7Emhampton/4ti2.p0.spkg> > > >http://www.d.umn.edu/~mhampton/glpk.p0.spkg<http://www.d.umn.edu/%7Emhampton/glpk.p0.spkg> > > > > i.e. I have overwritten my previous broken versions. > > > This is also now trac ticket #6663 (http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ > > > ticket/6663). > > > > -Marshall > > > I'm not a mathematician, don't have a clue what this does, so I am > > probably looking at this from a very different point of view to most. > > But I don't think it's a good idea to include code that hides warnings. > > > Again, it's a personal thing but when I look at web sites, like Wolfram > > Research's, which has 42 errors: > > >http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=www.wolfram.com&charset=%28detect+a... > > > it always makes me wonder how seriously quality is taken. > > > In contrast the Sage site has zero errors: > > >http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sagemath.org%2F&ch... > > > Mathematicians I've worked worth have always paid a lot of attention to > > detail - far more than I think engineers tend to. If someone covers up > > their compiler errors, it makes me wonder whether sufficient attention > > to detail is applied elsewhere. > > > If someone like WRI, Maplesoft etc wanted to try to point out the > > disadvantages of Sage, showing how we hide warnings would be like giving > > them ammunition to blow us up with. > > > I'm sure a lot of people will disagree with me, but personally I would > > avoid adding things to sage that rely on code that is built like that. > > I agree with you. It is difficult to disagree with such a natural technical > way to improve quality. > > -- William --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
