Am Dienstag, 25. Dezember 2018 11:55:13 UTC+1 schrieb vdelecroix: > > Le 25/12/2018 à 11:01, Timo Kaufmann a écrit : > > > > Am Dienstag, 25. Dezember 2018 00:25:40 UTC+1 schrieb William: > > > >> Just to be clear, I fully support your choice. > > > > > > Glad to hear that :) > > > > > >> By "both should be > >> supported, since they have complementary functionality (pros and cons > >> to each)... Oh well." I mean "I personally think both should be > >> supported. However, since I do not have the time or resources right > >> now to do so, then whoever does have those resources (you) should > >> decide." Thank you for taking the time to explain your choices > >> above, and more about the issues. > >> > >> -- William > >> > >> -- > >> William (http://wstein.org) > >> > > > > > > I hope I didn't sound too defensive -- It was certainly not my intention > to > > break anybodies workflow. I tried my best to match the behaviour of the > old > > interface as closely as possible (and added some new tests for that). > > Unfortunately I missed that part. Sorry for that. > > > > I think the fix would be non-trivial though and I'm not sure if it is > worth > > pursuing. > > Since there is only one process, there should be a single instance of > the R object in Sage. Isn't that a trivial fix? >
Yes I was talking about fixing the "just one process" situation. Simply making sure multiple `R()` instances compare equal should be trivial. > Disallowing multiple R instances might be a misfeature. But it is not > dramatic (to my mind and to the OP). > > Vincent > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
