Hi,
I'm trying to compile 4.7.1. The compile on Mac OS 10.6.8 proceeds
without errors, though I get an error building documentation similar
to the error below. When I try to run sage, though, I get the error
ImportError: dlopen(/Users/gross/sage-4.7.1/local/lib/python2.6/
sitepackages/sage/matr
Thank you! That's precisely what I needed.
On Sep 23, 5:40 am, Marco Streng wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Anna Haensch wrote:
> > > Is there any way in sage, or rather python, to define a function which
> > > takes as its input n variables, rather than assigning a fixed
> > > numb
On 23 Sep., 16:51, kcrisman wrote:
> Yes, I am aware of that; but in this case it was nearly all yellow :)
> which is why I didn't want to just add cdef's all over the place willy-
> nilly.
Yes. But %prun can provide the additional information which parts of
the code are the worst time-consumers,
@javier and DSM:
Silly me :) But of course you are right about that. It's just a
random number, anyway, plucked from the other implementation.
> I guess discussion should take place on the ticket, but, just for the
> record: It might be worth while to use an annotated version of the
> cython co
On Sep 21, 12:37 am, Volker Braun wrote:
> Thats impressive, but to compile Sage into js we need a bit more work ;-)
Emscripten can compile a C program to js.
Bill.
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-d
Hi!
I guess discussion should take place on the ticket, but, just for the
record: It might be worth while to use an annotated version of the
cython code (the notebook provides it); one finds that most lines of
code have a big overhead over C.
Apart from that, using %prun on the command line revea
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Anna Haensch wrote:
> > Is there any way in sage, or rather python, to define a function which
> > takes as its input n variables, rather than assigning a fixed
> > number?
>
> > I've just written a piece of code for the Quadratic Forms module,
> > which takes
There is a problem with my patch (#11812). Can anyone help me?
I wanted to have a doctest in there that really tests whether the
traceback contains certain substrings. Python doctesting ignores the
content of a traceback. So to test the content of the traceback, I
tried starting a nested Sage sess
On 23 sep, 06:57, "D. S. McNeil" wrote:
> I think replacing 2/3 with 2./3 in
>
> if abs(varia-root)<2/3:
>
> will help a little.. :^) By itself, that cuts the time down to 19s for me.
Slightly better, save yourself doing the same computation over and
over inside all the loops
