On Nov 29, 6:18 pm, Minh Nguyen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi folks,
Hi,
> I know that the subject of this post is strange/trivial (is it?) --- of
> course one can always determine who is/are the reviewers by looking
> through the relevant ticket. But I just want to know in some detail the
>
Hi folks,
I know that the subject of this post is strange/trivial (is it?) --- of
course one can always determine who is/are the reviewers by looking
through the relevant ticket. But I just want to know in some detail the
criteria that are used to determine whether someone is considered a
reviewe
On Nov 28, 2008, at 9:58 PM, John H Palmieri wrote:
>
> In the file sage/rings/integer.pyx, line 288 says
>
> cdef class Integer
> (sage.structure.element.EuclideanDomainElement):
>
> followed by documentation and the various methods for this class. But
> earlier in the file, line 137 says
>
In the file sage/rings/integer.pyx, line 288 says
cdef class Integer
(sage.structure.element.EuclideanDomainElement):
followed by documentation and the various methods for this class. But
earlier in the file, line 137 says
cdef class Integer(sage.structure.element.EuclideanDomainElemen
On Nov 28, 2008, at 4:31 PM, Ronan Paixão wrote:
> Em Ter, 2008-11-25 às 08:07 -0800, Mike Hansen escreveu:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 6:22 AM, Stan Schymanski
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Mike,
>>>
>>> This is pretty cool, thanks! Is there something equivalent for
>>> p
Em Ter, 2008-11-25 às 08:07 -0800, Mike Hansen escreveu:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 6:22 AM, Stan Schymanski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Mike,
> >
> > This is pretty cool, thanks! Is there something equivalent for passing
> > a function f to python or numpy?
>
> I'm not exactly
On Nov 28, 3:51 pm, "David Joyner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi David,
> No objections of course, but just out of curiousity:
> Would this be a sage-trac-announce list
That sounds like a much better name :)
>or would there be non-trac issues as well?
I would assume that nearly all discussi
> >
> > So all of the above leads me to believe that we must have a 100%
> > doctest coverage policy. As soon as we start giving out free passes
> > people will start to argue that their code should be exempted due to
> > BLAH BLAH BLAH and arguing with various people will take longer than
> > wr
No objections of course, but just out of curiousity:
Would this be a sage-trac-announce list or would there be non-trac
issues as well?
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 6:24 PM, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hello folks,
>
> from time to time various issues come up where we would like to reach
Dear all,
> Now I stand behind this 100% doctest policy!
Thank you all for your very helpful comments! They encouraged me to do
the effort and provide examples for the tiniest bit.
Particularly convincing is for me that, although so far my code works
stable under Linux on various machines, ther
Hello folks,
from time to time various issues come up where we would like to reach
all Sage developers, i.e. all people with trac accounts and various
other people closely tied to Sage development. But not all Sage
developers read sage-devel since it can be a rather high volume
mailing list. So I
On Nov 28, 2:44 pm, John Cremona <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Built fine on 64-bit Suse linux, but devel/sage/sage/plot/plot.py
> fails:
>
> sage -t devel/sage/sage/plot/plot.py
> **
> File "/home/jec/sage-3.2.1.alpha2/devel/sa
Built fine on 64-bit Suse linux, but devel/sage/sage/plot/plot.py
fails:
sage -t devel/sage/sage/plot/plot.py
**
File "/home/jec/sage-3.2.1.alpha2/devel/sage/sage/plot/plot.py", line
4576:
sage: adaptive_refinement(sin, (0,
Mike Hansen wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 10:49 AM, Jaap Spies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Don't! I once tried to lessen the doc-tests for low-level functions in
>> sloane functions. I almost got expelled from the Sage dev community :)!
>> We ordinary mortals have to accept this is a 'conditi
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 10:49 AM, Jaap Spies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Don't! I once tried to lessen the doc-tests for low-level functions in
> sloane functions. I almost got expelled from the Sage dev community :)!
> We ordinary mortals have to accept this is a 'conditio sine qua non'!
>
> Now
Simon King wrote:
> Dear developers,
>
> I have a couple of basic methods (such as "save part of the attributes
> in some file" or "put some data on a to-do-list used by another
> method"). I wonder if their doc strings need examples, for the
> following reasons:
>
> 1. I think they are of inter
On Nov 28, 2008, at 10:21 AM, mabshoff wrote:
> On Nov 28, 7:48 am, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 4:49 AM, Simon King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> jena.de> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear developers,
>
> Hi,
>
>>> I have a couple of basic methods (such as "save part of the
On Nov 28, 2008, at 7:45 AM, Ronan Paixão wrote:
> Em Sex, 2008-11-28 às 05:03 -0800, koffie escreveu:
>> I have to agree with William that something like Integer(float(1))
>> really should not work, this is because floats are really ugly and
>> unpredictable things which are prone to a lot of er
On Nov 28, 7:48 am, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 4:49 AM, Simon King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Dear developers,
Hi,
> > I have a couple of basic methods (such as "save part of the attributes
> > in some file" or "put some data on a to-do-list used
On Nov 26, 5:01 pm, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 26, 4:58 pm, Carl Witty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm still planning to work on this for most of the "basic" Sage types,
> > but I don't know when I'll get to it; if anybody wants to help, let me
> > know! (The basic framework
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 4:49 AM, Simon King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Dear developers,
>
> I have a couple of basic methods (such as "save part of the attributes
> in some file" or "put some data on a to-do-list used by another
> method"). I wonder if their doc strings need examples, for the
Em Sex, 2008-11-28 às 05:03 -0800, koffie escreveu:
> I have to agree with William that something like Integer(float(1))
> really should not work, this is because floats are really ugly and
> unpredictable things which are prone to a lot of errors, and even
> implementing Integer(float(X)) to work
I think the current policy is pretty absolute - even tiny little
utility functions should have a test. Another developer might find
and use your utility function, and having a test/example provides a
sort of documentation that can be very useful to someone skimming the
code. The policy can be a
I have to agree with William that something like Integer(float(1))
really should not work, this is because floats are really ugly and
unpredictable things which are prone to a lot of errors, and even
implementing Integer(float(X)) to work only if X is just happens to be
an integer wil not help to
Dear developers,
I have a couple of basic methods (such as "save part of the attributes
in some file" or "put some data on a to-do-list used by another
method"). I wonder if their doc strings need examples, for the
following reasons:
1. I think they are of internal use only, and a normal user do
On 15 Nov., 00:41, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > * Industrial-strengthBooleancomputation
>
> I wonder if this is similar to PolyBoRi? Or if it is some formal
> logic think.
>
I wondered until today,
but now I got the answer:
http://www.wolfram.com/products/mathematica/newin7/
26 matches
Mail list logo
