On 10/4/07, Justin C. Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For the record, you can generally find the "API" version of a GP
> command/function with '??':
>
> =
> ? ??nfrootsof1
> nfrootsof1(nf):
>
> computes the number of roots of unity w and a primitive w-th root
> of unity
On Oct 4, 2007, at 8:53 PM, William Stein wrote:
>
> On 10/4/07, John Voight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> OK, done. I'll see if I can make any progress on it myself.
>
> I've added that PARI function you want to Sage for the next release.
> The patch is the following (just so you know). T
On 10/4/07, Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Oct 4, 2007, at 1:35 PM, Joel B. Mohler wrote:
>
> > On Thursday 04 October 2007 15:38, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> >> Craig's reply is a good summary of what I was going to say. I'm
> >> getting an
> >>
> >> abort: unknown parent e91367eb18
On 10/4/07, John Voight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> OK, done. I'll see if I can make any progress on it myself.
I've added that PARI function you want to Sage for the next release.
The patch is the following (just so you know). The hardest part
was figuring out that the C library name of th
OK, done. I'll see if I can make any progress on it myself.
JV
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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://gro
On Oct 4, 2007, at 1:35 PM, Joel B. Mohler wrote:
> On Thursday 04 October 2007 15:38, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>> Craig's reply is a good summary of what I was going to say. I'm
>> getting an
>>
>> abort: unknown parent e91367eb18c1!
>
> Well, it looks like William succeeded in looking at it as th
On Thursday 04 October 2007 15:38, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> Craig's reply is a good summary of what I was going to say. I'm
> getting an
>
> abort: unknown parent e91367eb18c1!
Well, it looks like William succeeded in looking at it as the patch is
changed.
Craig mentioned the call to MatrixSp
Craig's reply is a good summary of what I was going to say. I'm
getting an
abort: unknown parent e91367eb18c1!
in trying to look at your patch. It sounds like a very good idea though.
On another note, however, the matrix coercion code has changed
significantly in the (as-yet unapplied) patc
Hello,
a short update:
- Mark Watkins and I got sympow to compile and start without throwing
an error message on Solaris 10 x86, but it fails to compute anything -
we are debugging this.
- I build a Solaris 10U4 x86 VMWare image that William also has. I
still need to install a proper build too
Hello,
2.8.6 is being testbuild before William releases a rc and hopefully
the final release will get release within 24 hours. So all new tickets
with patches should be assigned to 2.8.7 or later, unless you consider
it a blocker for 2.8.6. 2.8.7 is only a couple days away, so you won't
have to w
> > I know the normal python % operation does something similar but
> > that's taken out by the preparser.
>
> The Sage preparser doesn't touch %:
>
> sage: preparse('a % b')
> 'a % b'
But
sage: preparse('1.5 % 2')
'RR(1.5) % ZZ(2)'
>From memory, but you get the idea.
Nick
--~--~-
On Thu, 2007-10-04 at 09:50 -0400, William Stein wrote:
> On 10/4/07, Georg Muntingh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Indeed, that's great! What about adding an exclamation mark to the end
> > of the function you want to edit, so writing for instance "factor!" to
> > edit the source code of the func
Thanks for clearing up my confusion. I will try to implement this. I
have added it as ticket #825.
Marshall
On Oct 4, 11:48 am, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/4/07, Hamptonio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I am porting some Mathematica code to sage and I ran into a min
On 10/4/07, Hamptonio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I am porting some Mathematica code to sage and I ran into a minor
> issue. I was using the Mod command in mathematica with argument types
> Mod[float,integer] to create a periodic function. In sage, the mod
> command gives an error on that sor
I am porting some Mathematica code to sage and I ran into a minor
issue. I was using the Mod command in mathematica with argument types
Mod[float,integer] to create a periodic function. In sage, the mod
command gives an error on that sort of input. So I made a simple
function:
def float_mod(x,
On 10/4/07, William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 10/4/07, William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > This is precisely the behavior you're describing.
> >
> > Actually it isn't precisely the same behavior. If I do
>
> Another difference is that
>
> sage: edit(foo)
>
> will work ev
On 10/4/07, William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This is precisely the behavior you're describing.
>
> Actually it isn't precisely the same behavior. If I do
Another difference is that
sage: edit(foo)
will work even if the function foo is defined in compiled
Cython code.
The modifica
On 10/4/07, Hamptonio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Thanks for working on this. At the moment (on firefox at least) the
> toggle function hides the top bar but doesn't increase the size of the
> rest of the worksheet. I am wondering if I should apply your first
> patch and then the second? I a
Will it be easy to revert back to the official library? Like will
there be a sage restore option? Also maybe there could be a prompt
that asks the user after they have done some editing if he would like
to incorporate those changes into his sage install.
On 10/4/07, William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTE
Thanks for working on this. At the moment (on firefox at least) the
toggle function hides the top bar but doesn't increase the size of the
rest of the worksheet. I am wondering if I should apply your first
patch and then the second? I applied the toggle.patch on an
unmodified 2.8.5.1 version.
On 10/4/07, Fernando Perez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So they are two fairly different things, with the same name.
>
> %edit also takes arguments:
>
> ...
>
>- If the argument is the name of an object (other than a string),
> IPython will try to locate the file where it was defined and
On 10/4/07, William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The command we're discussing in Sage is different:
>
> edit(foo)
>
> for foo a function defined in the Sage library (right now, at least), finds
> the original source file that defines foo, and puts you in an editor
> to edit that file. Doin
On 10/4/07, Fernando Perez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Minor note (I haven't been following in detail): the underlying
> ipython below sage already has an %edit command (type %edit? for
> details) than includes hooks for declaring custom editors, handling
> the fact that there are editors whose c
On 10/4/07, William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 10/4/07, Georg Muntingh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Indeed, that's great! What about adding an exclamation mark to the end
> > of the function you want to edit, so writing for instance "factor!" to
> > edit the source code of the funct
On 10/4/07, Joel B. Mohler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Well, I'll reply to myself on this. I made a ticket and attached a patch (to
> the ticket). I do want some other people looking at it to see if there are
> more elegant fixes. It does make a quite noticable runtime difference on 7x7
> ma
On 10/4/07, Georg Muntingh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Indeed, that's great! What about adding an exclamation mark to the end
> of the function you want to edit, so writing for instance "factor!" to
> edit the source code of the function "factor"? Or is too easily
> confused with the factorial?
On 10/4/07, Jason Grout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Is anyone going to be at the AMS sectional meeting in Chicago this
> weekend? If so, it would be great to meet you if you are there. I
> realize that most people were at the recent SAGE days, so it's not
> likely, but I thought I'd ask anywa
Is anyone going to be at the AMS sectional meeting in Chicago this
weekend? If so, it would be great to meet you if you are there. I
realize that most people were at the recent SAGE days, so it's not
likely, but I thought I'd ask anyway.
Thanks,
Jason
--~--~-~--~~~
Well, I'll reply to myself on this. I made a ticket and attached a patch (to
the ticket). I do want some other people looking at it to see if there are
more elegant fixes. It does make a quite noticable runtime difference on 7x7
matrices (I was rather amazed how much the difference was actua
Indeed, that's great! What about adding an exclamation mark to the end
of the function you want to edit, so writing for instance "factor!" to
edit the source code of the function "factor"? Or is too easily
confused with the factorial?
Georg.
On Oct 4, 6:44 am, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I like the idea of having a toggle.
>
Preliminary patch for toggle (and another misc. fix) up at
http://www.sagetrac.org/sage_trac/attachment/ticket/643/toggle.patch .
I went the more conservative route and kept the very top bar visible.
> Wait a minute! Your changes have made it so the top
31 matches
Mail list logo
