+1 to optional !
Nathann
On Aug 25, 2:18 am, "Nicolas M. Thiery"
wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 11:57:55AM -0700, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> > > Speaking of which: I never got feedback on my request to put this spkg
> > > in optional/experimental:
>
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel/
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 1:38 PM, William Stein wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 8:25 PM, Jonathan Hanke wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm trying to build sage 4.5.2 on a Sun Fire X4450 server (Intel Xenon
>> processors) running Redhat linux (Enterprise edition), and get an error when
>> building Atlas in t
On 24 August 2010 23:48, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>> You could make it more complex if you wanted, but then you would need
>> to consider exceptions like ATLAS, for the reasons I stated.
>
> I wasn't proposing a rule, just a rule of thumb. And I did mean OR. If
> a package took 5 seconds to build,
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 7:47 AM, David Kirkby wrote:
> On 24 August 2010 15:39, David Kirkby wrote:
>
>> Robert,
>>
>> Are you suggesting (1) or (2) below?
>>
>> 1) Run if tests take < 30 seconds AND <25% of the build time.
>>
>> 2) If tests take <30 seconds OR < 25% of the build time.
>>
>> I ca
On 08/24/10 11:46 PM, William Stein wrote:
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 3:17 PM, Dr. David Kirkby
wrote:
On 08/24/10 07:55 PM, William Stein wrote:
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Justin C. Walkerwrote:
Dave,
I'm not a python guru, but I did not have a clue how to use this
source code.
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 3:17 PM, Dr. David Kirkby
wrote:
> On 08/24/10 07:55 PM, William Stein wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Justin C. Walker wrote:
>>>
>>> Dave,
>
I'm not a python guru, but I did not have a clue how to use this
source code. There's no readme file. No
On 08/24/10 07:55 PM, William Stein wrote:
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Justin C. Walker wrote:
Dave,
I'm not a python guru, but I did not have a clue how to use this
source code. There's no readme file. No setup.py. No docs directory.
IEP is a binary, not a python script. See the wi
On 08/24/10 09:38 PM, William Stein wrote:
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 8:25 PM, Jonathan Hanke wrote:
Hi,
I'm trying to build sage 4.5.2 on a Sun Fire X4450 server (Intel Xenon
processors) running Redhat linux (Enterprise edition), and get an error when
building Atlas in the make script. Any comm
Hi,
This is a quick update on the new http://ask.sagemath.org site.
1. There are now 77 registered users.
2. There have been 55 questions asked (with over 90 tags), and all
were answered (one is technically unanswered). The top tag
categories are "Cython" and "Notebook".
3. The perso
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 8:25 PM, Jonathan Hanke wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to build sage 4.5.2 on a Sun Fire X4450 server (Intel Xenon
> processors) running Redhat linux (Enterprise edition), and get an error when
> building Atlas in the make script. Any comments are appreciated. Thanks,
I jus
On Aug 24, 2010, at 11:55 , William Stein wrote:
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Justin C. Walker
wrote:
Dave,
On Aug 24, 2010, at 10:55 , David Kirkby wrote:
[snip]
I'm not a python guru, but I did not have a clue how to use this
source code. There's no readme file. No setup.py. No do
Hello,
It looks that #9343 is more or stable now (for a while now, the only
issues have to do with porting).
I think it's time for somebody to look at #9400. It's a patch written
by William with additions by me. It changes quite of bit of NumberField
code and also cleans up various functions in
>From IRC earlier today:
05:37] yet another promising python ide: http://code.google.com/p/iep/
[05:37] we should really look into writing tutorials how to
set them up for python
[05:37] (install into sage environemtn ...)
[07:52] schilly: what dependencies does it have?
[07:52] schilly: say,
On 8/24/10 1:55 PM, William Stein wrote:
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Justin C. Walker wrote:
Dave,
On Aug 24, 2010, at 10:55 , David Kirkby wrote:
On 24 August 2010 18:38, Jason Grout wrote:
This was posted to the scipy-user list today, and it seems like it would
be
interesting to t
On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 09:31:35 -0700
Mike Hansen wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 9:22 AM, Jason Grout
> wrote:
> > It's possible to do python stuff from within a C program. I wonder
> > if it would be sufficient to just import Sage within that python
> > context.
>
> Yep. At Sage Days 14, Dan
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Justin C. Walker wrote:
> Dave,
>
> On Aug 24, 2010, at 10:55 , David Kirkby wrote:
>
>> On 24 August 2010 18:38, Jason Grout wrote:
>>>
>>> This was posted to the scipy-user list today, and it seems like it would
>>> be
>>> interesting to the crowd here. I don'
Dave,
On Aug 24, 2010, at 10:55 , David Kirkby wrote:
On 24 August 2010 18:38, Jason Grout
wrote:
This was posted to the scipy-user list today, and it seems like it
would be
interesting to the crowd here. I don't know how it compares to
Spyder, for
example.
-Jason
I am pleased to
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 11:57:55AM -0700, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> > Speaking of which: I never got feedback on my request to put this spkg
> > in optional/experimental:
> >
> > http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel/browse_thread/thread/ea1dca...
>
> your wish to have it as standard most probab
On 23 August 2010 12:39, kcrisman wrote:
> FYI - relevant to several tickets.
>
> +
>
> Please distribute this message as you see fit.
>
> Announcing Maxima 5.22
If updating, we need to be careful about ECL. I've seen some recent
posts on ECL+ Maxima lists about problems between the two. I th
On 24 August 2010 18:38, Jason Grout wrote:
> This was posted to the scipy-user list today, and it seems like it would be
> interesting to the crowd here. I don't know how it compares to Spyder, for
> example.
>
> -Jason
>
>
> I am pleased to announce IEP, the interactive Editor for Python.
This was posted to the scipy-user list today, and it seems like it would
be interesting to the crowd here. I don't know how it compares to
Spyder, for example.
-Jason
I am pleased to announce IEP, the interactive Editor for Python.
website: http://code.google.com/p/iep/
downloads: http:
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 9:22 AM, Jason Grout
wrote:
> It's possible to do python stuff from within a C program. I wonder if it
> would be sufficient to just import Sage within that python context.
Yep. At Sage Days 14, Dan Grayson did basically this for Macaulay2 so
that they could call Sage co
On 8/24/10 8:23 AM, David Kirkby wrote:
One thing I *believe* Sage lacks, compared to Mathematica and MATLAB
(I;m not sure about Maple or MAGMA), is the ability to write a C
program and make use of Sage, by linking in a librar
If I want, I can create a C program, then using the Mathlink protoco
On Aug 24, 10:51 am, Jason Grout wrote:
> On 08/24/2010 09:03 AM, kcrisman wrote:
> > Dear sage-devel,
> >
> > I have two things I just want confirmation of before I file tickets -
> > such as an alternate way/workaround to do these things which I have
> > missed. Thanks for any replies.
>
On 08/24/2010 09:03 AM, kcrisman wrote:
> Dear sage-devel,
>
> I have two things I just want confirmation of before I file tickets -
> such as an alternate way/workaround to do these things which I have
> missed. Thanks for any replies.
>
> - kcrisman
>
> 1. There is no way to get a symbolic inte
On 24 August 2010 15:39, David Kirkby wrote:
> Robert,
>
> Are you suggesting (1) or (2) below?
>
> 1) Run if tests take < 30 seconds AND <25% of the build time.
>
> 2) If tests take <30 seconds OR < 25% of the build time.
>
> I can see a problem with the latter.
I mean I can see a problem with
On 24 August 2010 10:02, Simon King wrote:
> Hi all!
>
> On 23 Aug., 18:26, Robert Bradshaw
> wrote:
>> +1 to running all short test suites on build if they're small enough
>> (e.g. less than 30 seconds, or, say, 25% of the build time). That is
>> assuming they're expected to pass, unlike some (s
On 23 August 2010 17:26, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> +1 to running all short test suites on build if they're small enough
> (e.g. less than 30 seconds, or, say, 25% of the build time). That is
> assuming they're expected to pass, unlike some (scipy?).
>
> - Robert
Robert,
Are you suggesting (1) or
On Aug 24, 10:03 am, kcrisman wrote:
> Dear sage-devel,
>
> I have two things I just want confirmation of before I file tickets -
> such as an alternate way/workaround to do these things which I have
> missed. Thanks for any replies.
>
> - kcrisman
>
> 1. There is no way to get a symbolic inter
Dear sage-devel,
I have two things I just want confirmation of before I file tickets -
such as an alternate way/workaround to do these things which I have
missed. Thanks for any replies.
- kcrisman
1. There is no way to get a symbolic interpolated polynomial de novo
without going through polyno
One thing I *believe* Sage lacks, compared to Mathematica and MATLAB
(I;m not sure about Maple or MAGMA), is the ability to write a C
program and make use of Sage, by linking in a librar
If I want, I can create a C program, then using the Mathlink protoco
http://www.wolfram.com/solutions/mathlink
For the first time ever, Sage has built and pass all the long doctests
on OpenSolaris!
sage -t -long devel/sage/sage/coding/decoder.py
[53.1 s]
sage -t -long devel/sage/sage/schemes/elliptic_curves/ell_rational_field.py
[338.4 s]
---
> Maybe an alternative viewpoint (perhaps taken by Axiom, and maybe
> Sage) is
>
> (a) if you want to use a computer algebra system (especially one
> accessed through Sage) effectively then
> (b) you should know something about "modern algebra", at least so as
> to be conversant with the notions
I've put this on sage-devel where it belongs.
On Aug 24, 5:14 am, "Dr. David Kirkby"
wrote:
> On 08/23/10 04:20 PM, kcrisman wrote:
>
> > Well, in general it seems to me that most Sage bugs come from things/
> > functionality that didn't exist before, and once they exist people
> > want to start
On 08/24/10 12:17 AM, Carl Witty wrote:
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Dr. David Kirkby
wrote:
I've created a patch for sympow, which the release manager has agreed to
merge in 4.5.3 - in fact, he has kindly made it a blocker!!
He is happy with it, but wants someone able to comment on the c
Hi all!
On 23 Aug., 18:26, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
> +1 to running all short test suites on build if they're small enough
> (e.g. less than 30 seconds, or, say, 25% of the build time). That is
> assuming they're expected to pass, unlike some (scipy?).
Generally I am in favour of testing. However,
It seems very fragile to me to reply on a particular syntax in the
operating system's way of displaying a symbolic link to find out the
name of the current branch. Why not store the branch's name in a file
and read that? Then it would not matter whether it was a link or not.
John
On 23 August 2
37 matches
Mail list logo
