Jeroen Demeyer writes:
> You forget to address one very important point: *why* should we do this?
> Which problem will it solve?
Would you accept "the current way is ugly" as a problem it will solve?
Mainly, it's cleaner to separate development code from production code
than to have code reposit
You forget to address one very important point: *why* should we do this?
Which problem will it solve?
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this grou
John H Palmieri writes:
> - Keshav has also proposed merging all of the repositories for the spkgs into
> a single repository. This is also an interesting idea. How would that fit in?
Personally I would abandon SPKGs altogether. It never made sense to me
that we have made up our own package mana
Keshav Kini writes:
> - Move all various non-SPKG repositories to devel/sage/
Sorry, I meant move all various non-SPKG repositories to devel/sage* (as
explained in the subsequent lines).
-Keshav
Join us in #sagemath on irc.freenode.net !
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-de
Hello,
There has been a lot of talk recently about totally refactoring the way
that a Sage installation is structured, which is great, but will no
doubt take a lot of effort.
Looking at the directory structure of lmonade (and talking to Burcin on
this list about it a bit), as well as `R. Andrew O
On Friday, 9 March 2012 10:37:46 UTC+8, François wrote:
>
> On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 18:31:14 Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> > yes, I think 1.1.4 is no different in this way. Actually, we should
> update
> > our cvxopt spkg to 1.1.4.
> Ok but that still mean we have a bug with the latest OS X. So we should
On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 18:31:14 Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> yes, I think 1.1.4 is no different in this way. Actually, we should update
> our cvxopt spkg to 1.1.4.
Ok but that still mean we have a bug with the latest OS X. So we should
look for a solution of some kind. Are the cvxopt authors interested in
On Friday, 9 March 2012 10:26:23 UTC+8, François wrote:
>
> On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 18:21:40 John H Palmieri wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 8, 2012 4:49:12 PM UTC-8, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> > > It turns out that here Apple is not doing anything wrong.
> > > (after having a discussion here:
> > > https
Hi John,
I emailed you my latest communication to them.
Hopefully it's not such a big deal.
Dima
On Friday, 9 March 2012 10:21:40 UTC+8, John H Palmieri wrote:
>
>
> On Thursday, March 8, 2012 4:49:12 PM UTC-8, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>>
>> It turns out that here Apple is not doing anything wrong
On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 18:21:40 John H Palmieri wrote:
> On Thursday, March 8, 2012 4:49:12 PM UTC-8, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> > It turns out that here Apple is not doing anything wrong.
> > (after having a discussion here:
> > https://discussions.apple.com/message/17795537)
> >
> > It's improper use
On Thursday, March 8, 2012 4:49:12 PM UTC-8, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
> It turns out that here Apple is not doing anything wrong.
> (after having a discussion here:
> https://discussions.apple.com/message/17795537)
>
> It's improper use of BLAS by CVXOPT people that triggers errors.
> The C code
It turns out that here Apple is not doing anything wrong.
(after having a discussion here:
https://discussions.apple.com/message/17795537)
It's improper use of BLAS by CVXOPT people that triggers errors.
The C code in question violates BLAS convention that incx=0 in these kinds
of BLAS function
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 7:35 AM, David Roe wrote:
> If we get GSOC funding I could supervise various projects, depending on
> interest (though probably only one of these):
David, if you have time, can you expand on these projects like I did,
e.g., fill in:
GENERAL CONTEXT:
PREREQUISITES:
MENTOR:
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 2:16 AM, Harald Schilly wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 11:09, Daniel Krenn wrote:
>> How should a project proposal look like? I've read the FAQ of GSOC,
>> there is written something about that, but maybe we have a common way
>> to do it for Sage-projects.
>
> Hi, about a
Using sage 5.0 beta 7:
sage: 1/sqrt(2)
1/2*sqrt(2)
This is mathematically correct when taken to mean (by precedence of
operators)
(1/2)*sqrt(2)
personally I find it confusing, and many of my students (who don't know the
first thing
about precedence orders) took it to mean
1/(2*sqrt(2))
with
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 11:09, Daniel Krenn wrote:
> How should a project proposal look like? I've read the FAQ of GSOC,
> there is written something about that, but maybe we have a common way
> to do it for Sage-projects.
Hi, about a week ago I wrote you emails with more details. Basically,
it's
On Mar 7, 1:38 pm, Harald Schilly wrote:
> 2012/3/7 Lukáš Lánský :
> > Application deadline is in two days. What is left to do?
> I'm writing the application, i.e. a bit of a rewrite of the one from
> the last year. What's missing are some new (or rewritten) project
> proposals. Very few feedback
On 7 March 2012 05:34, Keshav Kini wrote:
> "Dr. David Kirkby" writes:
>> Well, I think Wolfram Research have a VERY long way to go before
>> Mathematica is the easiest to learn language.
>
> I don't know about that. Mathematica is not extremely difficult.
I did not say it is "extreamly difficul
18 matches
Mail list logo
