[sage-devel] Re: Mac application licensing question
On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 11:57 PM, Ivan Andrus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Just for clarification, you're only talking about distributiong the > > OUTPUT of > > a non-GPL'd program? You're not distributing the program itself at > > all but > > just the output of the program, right? > > Correct. I guess it's confusing since the output of said program _is_ > a program. > > > >> Will I run into problems from the GPL > >> side of things? I recently asked about permission on the Fluid side, > >> so hopefully that won't be an issue... > > > > You can't distribute gpl'd and non-gpl'd compiled code together > > as a single application. I can't tell yet whether you're even doing > > that. > > I can't either. What is meant by "application"? I would like the > experience for the user to be 100% seamless. Does that mean that it's > an application? What I really want to do is include an entire sage > distribution in Sage.app so that you can dowload it, drag it to > Applications, launch it, and go. I don't want the user to have to > compile things, etc. That would mean a Mac application that at some > point was compiled (though not by me) and was handed to me by a closed- > source application together with a compiled version of sage which is > GPL. > The following might be acceptable. (1) The user downloads a Fluid app. (2) The user downloads a separate sage-2.10.2.dmg (say). (3) When Fluid app runs it asks for the location of the sage dmg, extracts it "into itself", and uses that. Then the combination of Fluid with Sage only happens after the user installs the programs, so it doesn't violate the GPL in letter. Also sage-2.10.2.dmg also works by itself, and decoupling Fluid and sage-*dmg will make it so people can easily upgrade sage without you having to make a new sage+fluid application. Is this possible? --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-devel] Re: Mac application licensing question
On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 11:04 PM, Ivan Andrus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Fluid has been updated fixing the largest (in my mind) bug. > Therefore, I have created a version of Sage.app which I am happy > enough with to share with people. I have added instructions on the > wiki at http://wiki.sagemath.org/SageMacApplication and would like to > add a pre-packaged version so that it is very simple for users to > download a working application. Could you post a version somewhere so I can try it out? > > The problem that I worry about though, is that Fluid is not open > sourced. It creates a Mac OS X application (a directory structure > really) which I modify to fit the needs of sage (e.g. including sage > in the application). Can anyone comment on the legality of > distributing a closed source application (or at least the output of > one) along with a GPL'ed one? Will I run into problems from the GPL > side of things? I recently asked about permission on the Fluid side, > so hopefully that won't be an issue... > > Also what are the possibilities of getting an "official" Mac > application? Either Platypus or Fluid based (or both) would probably > be okay with me, though I think they both need some work before they > are fully satisfactory. > > Comments and suggestions of any kind are more than welcome. As soon > as I am comfortable distributing it, I will package up a version and > put it on the wiki. > > -Ivan > > > > -- William Stein Associate Professor of Mathematics University of Washington http://wstein.org --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-devel] Doc Days
Hi, Before we can release Sage-3.0 the doctest coverage must reach 50%. This is one of the more difficult goals for Sage-3.0. Thus I propose that we have a "Sage Doc Days" this Sunday. Whose interested in helping? -- William -- William Stein Associate Professor of Mathematics University of Washington http://wstein.org --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-devel] Re: Doc Days
On Mar 6, 2008, at 1:01 PM, William Stein wrote: > Before we can release Sage-3.0 the doctest coverage must reach 50%. > This is one of the more > difficult goals for Sage-3.0. Thus I propose that we have a "Sage Doc > Days" this Sunday. > Whose interested in helping? Sure. david --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-devel] Numpy/Cython Google Summer of Code project idea
Hi all, after the Scipy/Sage Days 8 meeting, we were all very impressed by the progress made by Cython. For those not familiar with it, Cython: http://www.cython.org/ is an evolved version of Pyrex (which is used by numpy and scipy) with lots of improvements. We'd like to position Cython as the preferred way of writing most, if not all, new extension code written for numpy and scipy, as it is easier to write, get right, debug (when you still get it wrong) and maintain than writing to the raw Python-C API. A specific project along these lines, that would be very beneficial for numpy could be: - Creating new matrix types in cython that match the cvxopt matrices. The creation of new numpy array types with efficient code would be very useful. - Rewriting the existing ndarray subclasses that ship with numpy, such as record arrays, in cython. In doing this, benchmarks of the relative performance of the new code should be obtained. Another possible project would be the addition to Cython of syntactic support for array expressions, multidimensional indexing, and other features of numpy. This is probably more difficult than the above, as it would require fairly detailed knowledge of both the numpy C API and the Cython internals, but would ultimately be extremely useful. Any student interested in this should quickly respond on the list; such a project would likely be co-mentored by people on the Numpy and Cython teams, since it is likely to require expertise from both ends. Cheers, f --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-devel] Re: Doc Days
Sorry, I am tied up on Sunday (though possibly will no longer be by the time the sun rises over Seattle. Assuming that it does.) However I have benn trying to contribute to doctests where competent and will continue to do so when possible! John On 06/03/2008, David Harvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Mar 6, 2008, at 1:01 PM, William Stein wrote: > > > Before we can release Sage-3.0 the doctest coverage must reach 50%. > > This is one of the more > > difficult goals for Sage-3.0. Thus I propose that we have a "Sage Doc > > Days" this Sunday. > > Whose interested in helping? > > > Sure. > > > david > > > > > > -- John Cremona --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-devel] Re: Doc Days
I would love to help! On Mar 6, 10:17 am, "John Cremona" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sorry, I am tied up on Sunday (though possibly will no longer be by > the time the sun rises over Seattle. Assuming that it does.) > > However I have benn trying to contribute to doctests where competent > and will continue to do so when possible! > > John > > On 06/03/2008, David Harvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 6, 2008, at 1:01 PM, William Stein wrote: > > > > Before we can release Sage-3.0 the doctest coverage must reach 50%. > > > This is one of the more > > > difficult goals for Sage-3.0. Thus I propose that we have a "Sage Doc > > > Days" this Sunday. > > > Whose interested in helping? > > > Sure. > > > david > > -- > John Cremona --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-devel] Valgrind on sage.math
Currently if I try to run valgrind on sage.math, it just says permission denied. Is that intentional, or did the permissions get screwed up somehow? Bill. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-devel] Re: Doc Days
I will try to help, although my weekends get consumed by family obligations sometimes. I'm not sure what areas are low in coverage that I am competent to help with. Almost all of my use of sage involves optional packages - phcpack, biopython, and polymake. The easiest thing for me would be to add tests to those, but presumably they don't count for your purposes. -Marshall On Mar 6, 12:01 pm, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > Before we can release Sage-3.0 the doctest coverage must reach 50%. > This is one of the more > difficult goals for Sage-3.0. Thus I propose that we have a "Sage Doc > Days" this Sunday. > Whose interested in helping? > > -- William > > -- > William Stein > Associate Professor of Mathematics > University of Washingtonhttp://wstein.org --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-devel] Re: Valgrind on sage.math
On Mar 6, 8:39 pm, Bill Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi Bill, > Currently if I try to run valgrind on sage.math, it just says > permission denied. Is that intentional, or did the permissions get > screwed up somehow? > > Bill. Nope, that version has been disabled on purpose since it can't deal with the patched GMP version Sage uses for example. There is a working version in /usr/local/valgrdind... or alternatively install and use the optional valgrind.spkg Cheers, Michael --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-devel] SAGE bug report: a SIGSEGV
The following code causes a crash: R = BooleanPolynomialRing(2) f = 1 + R.gens()[0] s = f.set() t = set(s) # this happened on sagenb.org, as well as the latest SAGE version installed locally. Unhandled SIGSEGV: A segmentation fault occured in SAGE. This probably occured because a *compiled* component of SAGE has a bug in it (typically accessing invalid memory) or is not properly wrapped with _sig_on, _sig_off. You might want to run SAGE under gdb with 'sage -gdb' to debug this. SAGE will now terminate (sorry). --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-devel] Re: Doc Days
Will you be publishing a list of which modules are lacking acceptable doctest coverage? On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 1:01 PM, William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, > > Before we can release Sage-3.0 the doctest coverage must reach 50%. > This is one of the more > difficult goals for Sage-3.0. Thus I propose that we have a "Sage Doc > Days" this Sunday. > Whose interested in helping? > > -- William > > -- > William Stein > Associate Professor of Mathematics > University of Washington > http://wstein.org > > > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-devel] Re: Doc Days
I'm in. I'll likely work on either modular/hecke (24.7%) or modular/modsym (14.2%). -cc On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 10:01 AM, William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, > > Before we can release Sage-3.0 the doctest coverage must reach 50%. > This is one of the more > difficult goals for Sage-3.0. Thus I propose that we have a "Sage Doc > Days" this Sunday. > Whose interested in helping? > > -- William > > -- > William Stein > Associate Professor of Mathematics > University of Washington > http://wstein.org > > > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-devel] Re: Doc Days
I'll be there. So far I've been doctest-ing various files in sage/ rings (ring.pyx, ideal.pyx, integer_ring.pyx). I'd like to see where people want to see more detailed docstrings and doctests. -- Chris Swierczewski --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-devel] Re: Doc Days
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 2:04 PM, Chris Swierczewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'll be there. So far I've been doctest-ing various files in sage/ ^^ Hey, you're local. Want to meet at a coffee shop, e.g., one in Capitol Hill? > Will you be publishing a list of which modules are lacking acceptable > doctest coverage? Very good question! So in sage-2.10.3.rc2, the coverage score is 44.0% (and there are 18584 functions total). I got this by doing $ cd SAGE_ROOT/devel/sage/sage/ $ sage -coverage . algebras/algebra.py: 0% (0 of 1) algebras/algebra_element.py: 0% (0 of 1) ... Overall weighted coverage score: 44.0% Total number of functions: 18584 - Here's a breakdown by modules: ALGEBRAS: Overall weighted coverage score: 15.7% Total number of functions: 215 CALCULUS: Overall weighted coverage score: 50.7% Total number of functions: 495 CATEGORIES: Overall weighted coverage score: 15.1% Total number of functions: 278 CODING: Overall weighted coverage score: 80.0% Total number of functions: 117 COMBINAT: Overall weighted coverage score: 75.5% Total number of functions: 1919 CRYPTO: Overall weighted coverage score: 62.4% Total number of functions: 198 DATABASES: Overall weighted coverage score: 16.8% Total number of functions: 218 DSAGE: Overall weighted coverage score: 0.0% Total number of functions: 477 EXT: Overall weighted coverage score: 58.1% Total number of functions: 79 FUNCTIONS: Overall weighted coverage score: 56.7% Total number of functions: 402 GAMES: Overall weighted coverage score: 33.0% Total number of functions: 3 GEOMETRY: Overall weighted coverage score: 53.3% Total number of functions: 89 GRAPHS: Overall weighted coverage score: 71.9% Total number of functions: 444 GROUPS: Overall weighted coverage score: 53.4% Total number of functions: 420 GSL: Overall weighted coverage score: 29.1% Total number of functions: 82 INTERFACES: Overall weighted coverage score: 12.7% Total number of functions: 998 LFUNCTIONS: Overall weighted coverage score: 41.7% Total number of functions: 38 LIBS: Overall weighted coverage score: 55.3% Total number of functions: 1130 LOGIC: Overall weighted coverage score: 16.0% Total number of functions: 18 MATRIX: Overall weighted coverage score: 57.6% Total number of functions: 672 MEDIA: Overall weighted coverage score: 0.0% Total number of functions: 26 MISC: Overall weighted coverage score: 24.8% Total number of functions: 479 MODULAR: Overall weighted coverage score: 47.8% Total number of functions: 1198 MODULES: Overall weighted coverage score: 48.7% Total number of functions: 372 MONOIDS: Overall weighted coverage score: 54.8% Total number of functions: 87 NUMERICAL: Overall weighted coverage score: 60.0% Total number of functions: 5 PLOT: Overall weighted coverage score: 17.6% Total number of functions: 662 PROBABILITY: Overall weighted coverage score: 3.0% Total number of functions: 30 QUADRATIC_FORMS: Overall weighted coverage score: 22.8% Total number of functions: 48 RINGS: Overall weighted coverage score: 50.4% Total number of functions: 5021 SCHEMES: Overall weighted coverage score: 38.6% Total number of functions: 846 SERVER: Overall weighted coverage score: 0.7% Total number of functions: 854 SETS: Overall weighted coverage score: 81.1% Total number of functions: 71 STRUCTURE: Overall weighted coverage score: 26.2% Total number of functions: 452 TESTS: Overall weighted coverage score: 0.0% Total number of functions: 135 --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-devel] Re: Doc Days
On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 at 10:01AM -0800, William Stein wrote: > Before we can release Sage-3.0 the doctest coverage must reach 50%. > This is one of the more difficult goals for Sage-3.0. Thus I propose > that we have a "Sage Doc Days" this Sunday. Whose interested in > helping? Since I opened a ticket complaining about documentation, I suppose I should! Dan -- --- Dan Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - KAIST Department of Mathematical Sciences --- http://math.kaist.ac.kr/~drake signature.asc Description: Digital signature
[sage-devel] Re: Doc Days
On Mar 6, 3:06 pm, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hey, you're local. Want to meet at a coffee shop, e.g., one in > Capitol Hill? Sure thing! I'd like to get some Sage work done in the morning. (Algebra study session in the mid-afternoon.) Are there any other Seattle-ites out there who would like to join in on the festivities? -- Chris Swierczewski --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-devel] Re: Doc Days
I think the best one for me would be interfaces; if other people are interested in something in there please let me know so I don't duplicate effort. I am most interested in (and will start with) the phc, mathematica, and tachyon interfaces. Will this be coordinated on IRC, or a wiki, or something else? -M. Hampton On Mar 6, 5:06 pm, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 2:04 PM, Chris Swierczewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I'll be there. So far I've been doctest-ing various files in sage/ > > ^^ > > Hey, you're local. Want to meet at a coffee shop, e.g., one in > Capitol Hill? > > > Will you be publishing a list of which modules are lacking acceptable > > doctest coverage? > > Very good question! So in sage-2.10.3.rc2, the coverage score is 44.0% > (and there are 18584 functions total). I got this by doing > > $ cd SAGE_ROOT/devel/sage/sage/ > $ sage -coverage . > algebras/algebra.py: 0% (0 of 1) > algebras/algebra_element.py: 0% (0 of 1) > ... > Overall weighted coverage score: 44.0% > Total number of functions: 18584 > > - > > Here's a breakdown by modules: > > ALGEBRAS: Overall weighted coverage score: 15.7% > Total number of functions: 215 > CALCULUS: Overall weighted coverage score: 50.7% > Total number of functions: 495 > CATEGORIES: Overall weighted coverage score: 15.1% > Total number of functions: 278 > CODING: Overall weighted coverage score: 80.0% > Total number of functions: 117 > COMBINAT: Overall weighted coverage score: 75.5% > Total number of functions: 1919 > CRYPTO: Overall weighted coverage score: 62.4% > Total number of functions: 198 > DATABASES: Overall weighted coverage score: 16.8% > Total number of functions: 218 > DSAGE: Overall weighted coverage score: 0.0% > Total number of functions: 477 > EXT: Overall weighted coverage score: 58.1% > Total number of functions: 79 > FUNCTIONS: Overall weighted coverage score: 56.7% > Total number of functions: 402 > GAMES: Overall weighted coverage score: 33.0% > Total number of functions: 3 > GEOMETRY: Overall weighted coverage score: 53.3% > Total number of functions: 89 > GRAPHS: Overall weighted coverage score: 71.9% > Total number of functions: 444 > GROUPS: Overall weighted coverage score: 53.4% > Total number of functions: 420 > GSL: Overall weighted coverage score: 29.1% > Total number of functions: 82 > INTERFACES: Overall weighted coverage score: 12.7% > Total number of functions: 998 > LFUNCTIONS: Overall weighted coverage score: 41.7% > Total number of functions: 38 > LIBS: Overall weighted coverage score: 55.3% > Total number of functions: 1130 > LOGIC: Overall weighted coverage score: 16.0% > Total number of functions: 18 > MATRIX: Overall weighted coverage score: 57.6% > Total number of functions: 672 > MEDIA: Overall weighted coverage score: 0.0% > Total number of functions: 26 > MISC: Overall weighted coverage score: 24.8% > Total number of functions: 479 > MODULAR: Overall weighted coverage score: 47.8% > Total number of functions: 1198 > MODULES: Overall weighted coverage score: 48.7% > Total number of functions: 372 > MONOIDS: Overall weighted coverage score: 54.8% > Total number of functions: 87 > NUMERICAL: Overall weighted coverage score: 60.0% > Total number of functions: 5 > PLOT: Overall weighted coverage score: 17.6% > Total number of functions: 662 > PROBABILITY: Overall weighted coverage score: 3.0% > Total number of functions: 30 > QUADRATIC_FORMS: Overall weighted coverage score: 22.8% > Total number of functions: 48 > RINGS: Overall weighted coverage score: 50.4% > Total number of functions: 5021 > SCHEMES: Overall weighted coverage score: 38.6% > Total number of functions: 846 > SERVER: Overall weighted coverage score: 0.7% > Total number of functions: 854 > SETS: Overall weighted coverage score: 81.1% > Total number of functions: 71 > STRUCTURE: Overall weighted coverage score: 26.2% > Total number of functions: 452 > TESTS: Overall weighted coverage score: 0.0% > Total number of functions: 135 --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-devel] Re: Doc Days
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 9:07 PM, mhampton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think the best one for me would be interfaces; if other people are > interested in something in there please let me know so I don't > duplicate effort. I am most interested in (and will start with) the > phc, mathematica, and tachyon interfaces. > > Will this be coordinated on IRC, or a wiki, or something else? Yes, we'll meet on #sage-devel. Also, the wiki page for doc day 2 is here: http://wiki.sagemath.org/doc2 I hope we'll focus 100% on writing doctests. I also expect that we'll find and report lots of bugs in the course of writing doctests. The more we find the better. > > -M. Hampton > > > On Mar 6, 5:06 pm, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 2:04 PM, Chris Swierczewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > I'll be there. So far I've been doctest-ing various files in sage/ > > > > ^^ > > > > Hey, you're local. Want to meet at a coffee shop, e.g., one in > > Capitol Hill? > > > > > Will you be publishing a list of which modules are lacking acceptable > > > doctest coverage? > > > > Very good question! So in sage-2.10.3.rc2, the coverage score is 44.0% > > (and there are 18584 functions total). I got this by doing > > > > $ cd SAGE_ROOT/devel/sage/sage/ > > $ sage -coverage . > > algebras/algebra.py: 0% (0 of 1) > > algebras/algebra_element.py: 0% (0 of 1) > > ... > > Overall weighted coverage score: 44.0% > > Total number of functions: 18584 > > > > - > > > > Here's a breakdown by modules: > > > > ALGEBRAS: Overall weighted coverage score: 15.7% > > Total number of functions: 215 > > CALCULUS: Overall weighted coverage score: 50.7% > > Total number of functions: 495 > > CATEGORIES: Overall weighted coverage score: 15.1% > > Total number of functions: 278 > > CODING: Overall weighted coverage score: 80.0% > > Total number of functions: 117 > > COMBINAT: Overall weighted coverage score: 75.5% > > Total number of functions: 1919 > > CRYPTO: Overall weighted coverage score: 62.4% > > Total number of functions: 198 > > DATABASES: Overall weighted coverage score: 16.8% > > Total number of functions: 218 > > DSAGE: Overall weighted coverage score: 0.0% > > Total number of functions: 477 > > EXT: Overall weighted coverage score: 58.1% > > Total number of functions: 79 > > FUNCTIONS: Overall weighted coverage score: 56.7% > > Total number of functions: 402 > > GAMES: Overall weighted coverage score: 33.0% > > Total number of functions: 3 > > GEOMETRY: Overall weighted coverage score: 53.3% > > Total number of functions: 89 > > GRAPHS: Overall weighted coverage score: 71.9% > > Total number of functions: 444 > > GROUPS: Overall weighted coverage score: 53.4% > > Total number of functions: 420 > > GSL: Overall weighted coverage score: 29.1% > > Total number of functions: 82 > > INTERFACES: Overall weighted coverage score: 12.7% > > Total number of functions: 998 > > LFUNCTIONS: Overall weighted coverage score: 41.7% > > Total number of functions: 38 > > LIBS: Overall weighted coverage score: 55.3% > > Total number of functions: 1130 > > LOGIC: Overall weighted coverage score: 16.0% > > Total number of functions: 18 > > MATRIX: Overall weighted coverage score: 57.6% > > Total number of functions: 672 > > MEDIA: Overall weighted coverage score: 0.0% > > Total number of functions: 26 > > MISC: Overall weighted coverage score: 24.8% > > Total number of functions: 479 > > MODULAR: Overall weighted coverage score: 47.8% > > Total number of functions: 1198 > > MODULES: Overall weighted coverage score: 48.7% > > Total number of functions: 372 > > MONOIDS: Overall weighted coverage score: 54.8% > > Total number of functions: 87 > > NUMERICAL: Overall weighted coverage score: 60.0% > > Total number of functions: 5 > > PLOT: Overall weighted coverage score: 17.6% > > Total number of functions: 662 > > PROBABILITY: Overall weighted coverage score: 3.0% > > Total number of functions: 30 > > QUADRATIC_FORMS: Overall weighted coverage score: 22.8% > > Total number of functions: 48 > > RINGS: Overall weighted coverage score: 50.4% > > Total number of functions: 5021 > > SCHEMES: Overall weighted coverage score: 38.6% > > Total number of functions: 846 > > SERVER: Overall weighted coverage score: 0.7% > > Total number of functions: 854 > > SETS: Overall weighted coverage score: 81.1% > > Total number of functions: 71 > > STRUCTURE: Overall weighted coverage score: 26.2% > > Total number of functions: 452 > > TESTS: Overall weighted coverage score: 0.0% > > Total number of functions: 135 > > > > > -- William Stein Associate Professor of Mathematics University of Washington http://wstein.org --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@goog
[sage-devel] Re: Mac application licensing question
> The following might be acceptable. > > (1) The user downloads a Fluid app. > > (2) The user downloads a separate sage-2.10.2.dmg (say). > > (3) When Fluid app runs it asks for the location of the sage dmg, > extracts it > "into itself", and uses that. > > Then the combination of Fluid with Sage only happens after the user > installs > the programs, so it doesn't violate the GPL in letter. Also > sage-2.10.2.dmg > also works by itself, and decoupling Fluid and sage-*dmg will make > it so > people can easily upgrade sage without you having to make a new sage > +fluid > application. Is this possible? That would be possible (isn't anything) but would be much different than now, since it would require some sort of user interface to be written to do that. I think at that point I may as well start from scratch with a brand new application. That's probably the best thing anyway, but I'm not sure that I am up to it at the moment. I can't even seem to find time to get this working. > Could you post a version somewhere so I can try it out? I have also uploaded http://wiki.sagemath.org/SageMacApplication?action=AttachFile&do=get&target=Sage-fluid.zip which does not include a copy of sage. It does contain a script that I use to combine the sage fluid-app and the sage distribution. All you have to do is put a sage directory (as off of a .dmg from sagemath.org) in the same folder and run make-sage-app.sh. This is not how I would like to distribute it ideally, but on the other hand, it may be better than what we have right now. I don't think the fact that I include the "source code" for the Fluid- derived app (i.e. the fact that I typed http://localhost:8000/ into a dialog) will satisfy RMS's raging zombies of freedom. I do have a completely packaged version and would like to distribute it, but think that it's probably not legal to do so. I would really rather not get in any trouble. If anyone wants I am also looking into adding a browser to Platypus. I think that may be a superior solution, but it will undoubtedly be more work. On a slightly different note, does it count as distributing it if I only give it to a friend? In other words does distributing mean giving it to anyone, or just making it public? Surely, it must mean the latter? -Ivan Andrus --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-devel] Re: SAGE bug report: a SIGSEGV
On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 12:53:43 -0800 (PST) VictorMiller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The following code causes a crash: > > R = BooleanPolynomialRing(2) > f = 1 + R.gens()[0] > s = f.set() > t = set(s) > > # this happened on sagenb.org, as well as the latest SAGE version > installed locally. This is a known issue, the trac ticket is here: http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/1711 I have a workaround for it in my tree which contains the interface updates for PolyBoRi-0.2, but I still don't know how to fix the real problem. Any help will be much appreciated. I will submit the updates this weekend, so they might be in the next version (after 2.10.3). In the meantime, you can use the polynomial iterators in place of the set iterators. They essentially work the same way. Burcin --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-devel] Re: Doc Days
Does one just add a bunch of documentation and make a patch and submit it? Or does one make a bunch of Trac tickets and make a ton of patches? On Mar 6, 9:55 pm, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 9:07 PM, mhampton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I think the best one for me would be interfaces; if other people are > > interested in something in there please let me know so I don't > > duplicate effort. I am most interested in (and will start with) the > > phc, mathematica, and tachyon interfaces. > > > Will this be coordinated on IRC, or a wiki, or something else? > > Yes, we'll meet on #sage-devel. Also, the wiki page for doc day 2 is here: > >http://wiki.sagemath.org/doc2 > > I hope we'll focus 100% on writing doctests. I also expect that we'll > find and report lots of bugs in the course of writing doctests. The > more we find the better. > > > > > > > -M. Hampton > > > On Mar 6, 5:06 pm, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 2:04 PM, Chris Swierczewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > wrote: > > > > > I'll be there. So far I've been doctest-ing various files in sage/ > > > > ^^ > > > > Hey, you're local. Want to meet at a coffee shop, e.g., one in > > > Capitol Hill? > > > > > Will you be publishing a list of which modules are lacking acceptable > > > > doctest coverage? > > > > Very good question! So in sage-2.10.3.rc2, the coverage score is 44.0% > > > (and there are 18584 functions total). I got this by doing > > > > $ cd SAGE_ROOT/devel/sage/sage/ > > > $ sage -coverage . > > > algebras/algebra.py: 0% (0 of 1) > > > algebras/algebra_element.py: 0% (0 of 1) > > > ... > > > Overall weighted coverage score: 44.0% > > > Total number of functions: 18584 > > > > - > > > > Here's a breakdown by modules: > > > > ALGEBRAS: Overall weighted coverage score: 15.7% > > > Total number of functions: 215 > > > CALCULUS: Overall weighted coverage score: 50.7% > > > Total number of functions: 495 > > > CATEGORIES: Overall weighted coverage score: 15.1% > > > Total number of functions: 278 > > > CODING: Overall weighted coverage score: 80.0% > > > Total number of functions: 117 > > > COMBINAT: Overall weighted coverage score: 75.5% > > > Total number of functions: 1919 > > > CRYPTO: Overall weighted coverage score: 62.4% > > > Total number of functions: 198 > > > DATABASES: Overall weighted coverage score: 16.8% > > > Total number of functions: 218 > > > DSAGE: Overall weighted coverage score: 0.0% > > > Total number of functions: 477 > > > EXT: Overall weighted coverage score: 58.1% > > > Total number of functions: 79 > > > FUNCTIONS: Overall weighted coverage score: 56.7% > > > Total number of functions: 402 > > > GAMES: Overall weighted coverage score: 33.0% > > > Total number of functions: 3 > > > GEOMETRY: Overall weighted coverage score: 53.3% > > > Total number of functions: 89 > > > GRAPHS: Overall weighted coverage score: 71.9% > > > Total number of functions: 444 > > > GROUPS: Overall weighted coverage score: 53.4% > > > Total number of functions: 420 > > > GSL: Overall weighted coverage score: 29.1% > > > Total number of functions: 82 > > > INTERFACES: Overall weighted coverage score: 12.7% > > > Total number of functions: 998 > > > LFUNCTIONS: Overall weighted coverage score: 41.7% > > > Total number of functions: 38 > > > LIBS: Overall weighted coverage score: 55.3% > > > Total number of functions: 1130 > > > LOGIC: Overall weighted coverage score: 16.0% > > > Total number of functions: 18 > > > MATRIX: Overall weighted coverage score: 57.6% > > > Total number of functions: 672 > > > MEDIA: Overall weighted coverage score: 0.0% > > > Total number of functions: 26 > > > MISC: Overall weighted coverage score: 24.8% > > > Total number of functions: 479 > > > MODULAR: Overall weighted coverage score: 47.8% > > > Total number of functions: 1198 > > > MODULES: Overall weighted coverage score: 48.7% > > > Total number of functions: 372 > > > MONOIDS: Overall weighted coverage score: 54.8% > > > Total number of functions: 87 > > > NUMERICAL: Overall weighted coverage score: 60.0% > > > Total number of functions: 5 > > > PLOT: Overall weighted coverage score: 17.6% > > > Total number of functions: 662 > > > PROBABILITY: Overall weighted coverage score: 3.0% > > > Total number of functions: 30 > > > QUADRATIC_FORMS: Overall weighted coverage score: 22.8% > > > Total number of functions: 48 > > > RINGS: Overall weighted coverage score: 50.4% > > > Total number of functions: 5021 > > > SCHEMES: Overall weighted coverage score: 38.6% > > > Total number of functions: 846 > > > SERVER: Overall weighted coverage score: 0.7% > > > Total number of functions: 854 > > > SETS: Overall weighted coverage score: 81.1% > > > Total number of functions: 71 > > > STRUCTURE
[sage-devel] Re: Doc Days
On Mar 7, 8:53 am, Timothy Clemans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Does one just add a bunch of documentation and make a patch and submit > it? Or does one make a bunch of Trac tickets and make a ton of > patches? > The idea is to add doctests. One would add doctests to one file or directory of files and then open a ticket with a patch attached. We don't need loads of open tickets about missing doctests since someone has written them. "-coverage" let's you find out instantly where the problem areas are. Cheers, Michael --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-devel] Sage Days 8 and SymPy
Hi, I was at Sage Days 8 and I posted what we were doing in there to my blog: http://ondrejcertik.blogspot.com/2008/03/sage-days-8.html here I'd like to put some points related to SymPy and Sage.calculus. We discussed quite a lot of it in Austin, but I'd like to have it in the mailinglist as well. CCing sage-devel too. I am interested in any comments, especially if you think that I am completely wrong. :) 1) The idea of SymPy is to have something that is easily extensible, easy to use/install, pure Python by default (possibly later with some optional parts in C), that together with numpy, scipy, ipython, matplotlib and other projects will provide all the necessary tools that one needs to do scientific (engineering) calculations. Most of our users are imho people using these tools anyway. We should adapt our page, that currently says "It aims to become a full-featured computer algebra system (CAS)", because a CAS for me is anything I may need in physics/engineering, but for mathematicians, CAS means a lot of different things too. Also CAS probably implies all the other things that go with it, like numerics (scipy+numpy), notebook (Sage or ipython1) etc. 2) People, that want the bigger picture, all in one solution, should use Sage, that includes all of these tools. Sage.calculus is currently based on maxima and Gary is currently rewriting the core of it in Cython, so that maxima is only called for difficult things, like limits and integrals. When this is done, then it'd be quite easy to slowly replace maxima part by part with cython+other parts of sage. What I personally would like to have is something that is not depending on the rest of Sage, because I like the tool doing one job and doing it well. I don't like all in one solutions, but rather separate libraries, leaving it on myself to assemble the final program out of it. Sage mission is more to be a viable alternative to Maple/Mathematica/Magma/Matlab, all of which are monolitic all in one solutions (and much bigger than Sage actually). That said, I think that in few years when Sage matures, I think people will be interested in making the parts more independent. But currently to make Sage.calculus work, you need to download either the binary (260MB), or 200MB of sources, do "make" and wait for couple of hours. With sympy, you download 1MB of sources, do "import sympy" and you are up and running. See also below for more arguments on this. 3) Other advantages of SymPy over Sage are: * small and BSD licensed, so you can include it in your own project without any restrictions (technical or political). * being pure python and having a simple design, you can easily debug it and fix it to make it work for your problems (please send your patches back to us:) * works natively on all platforms As Michael Abshoff has pointed out, Sage will be working on windows natively too, maybe even by the end of the year. Actually Microsoft finances the port, which I find really cool that MS is financing a truly opensource project (that among other things brings a lot of people to Python). Another point that Michael made, is that Sage will finally get to linux distributions too (Debian and others), thus being easy to install and use. Which definitely makes a lot of things easier. Nevertheless, when something has 1MB, it is a lot easier to deal with, I must stand on my point here. :) Ondrej --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
