On 2012-06-24 11:25, David Roe wrote:
> * Resolves #838, #4294, #4750, #9772, #10458/#12856, #11336, #12815,
> #2235, #2630, #4943, #9224, #9642, #8708
Probably #11338 also.
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
s
On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 11:38 PM, William Stein wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 11:15 PM, Simon King
> wrote:
> > Hi William,
> >
> > On 2012-06-25, William Stein wrote:
> >> I think OS X is by default slower than Linux at the (like 100,000
> >> stupid) filesystem calls that Sage does every ti
On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 11:15 PM, Simon King wrote:
> Hi William,
>
> On 2012-06-25, William Stein wrote:
>> I think OS X is by default slower than Linux at the (like 100,000
>> stupid) filesystem calls that Sage does every time it starts up.
>
> If the filesystem calls are stupid then we should
On 2012-06-25 08:15, Simon King wrote:
> Hi William,
>
> On 2012-06-25, William Stein wrote:
>> I think OS X is by default slower than Linux at the (like 100,000
>> stupid) filesystem calls that Sage does every time it starts up.
>
> If the filesystem calls are stupid then we should try to avoid
Hi William,
On 2012-06-25, William Stein wrote:
> I think OS X is by default slower than Linux at the (like 100,000
> stupid) filesystem calls that Sage does every time it starts up.
If the filesystem calls are stupid then we should try to avoid them. Are
there trac tickets for this? Can you giv
The OpenSolaris buildbot hawk will be down for much of today (Monday), and at
least part of tomorrow. Feel free to start something on it, but don't be too
surprised if I switch it off.
If I see someone is using it, I'll try to keep it up and do something else, but
at some point it will have to
On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 12:58 PM, David Roe wrote:
>
>
>> > * eliminate Sage startup time per-file, which drops the time to run all
>> > tests
>> > dramatically, especially on OS X.
>>
>> Why especially on OS X?
>
>
> Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought the startup time per file was higher on OS
> X.
I'd be very interested to hear any comments you may have on the efficiency
of the method.
On Sunday, June 24, 2012 1:17:40 PM UTC-4, John Cremona wrote:
>
> Excellent idea -- I would make a lot of us of this, especially if it
> were done very efficiently!
>
> I'll be interested to read your p
> * eliminate Sage startup time per-file, which drops the time to run all
> tests
> > dramatically, especially on OS X.
>
> Why especially on OS X?
>
Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought the startup time per file was higher on OS
X. It was just a vague recollection though: I haven't done tests.
David
Excellent idea -- I would make a lot of us of this, especially if it
were done very efficiently!
I'll be interested to read your preprint (which I have not yet).
John Cremona
CC-ing sage-nt
On 24 June 2012 11:21, dkrumm wrote:
> I would like to know what people think of the idea of implementing
On Jun 24, 2:10 am, Volker Braun wrote:
> On Sunday, June 24, 2012 9:45:34 AM UTC+1, Simon King wrote:
>
> > Shouldn't we rather duck typing?
>
> Ideally, yes. So an even better solution would be
>
> try:
> X = range(1,X+1)
> except TypeError:
> pass
Isn't that the wrong way around? The
David Roe writes:
> Hi everyone,
> For a few months I've been working on a new doctesting framework (based on
> code
> by Robert Bradshaw), which is now ready for review at #12415.
Awesome!
> Some highlights
> include:
>
> * eliminate Sage startup time per-file, which drops the time to run all
I would like to know what people think of the idea of implementing a method
for computing all numbers of bounded height in a given number field. The
algorithm is described in the paper http://arxiv.org/pdf/.4963.pdf .
Since uploading this paper to the arxiv I have had several requests for my
Hi everyone,
For a few months I've been working on a new doctesting framework (based on
code by Robert Bradshaw), which is now ready for review at #12415. Some
highlights include:
* eliminate Sage startup time per-file, which drops the time to run all
tests dramatically, especially on OS X.
* add
On Sunday, June 24, 2012 9:45:34 AM UTC+1, Simon King wrote:
>
> Shouldn't we rather duck typing?
Ideally, yes. So an even better solution would be
try:
X = range(1,X+1)
except TypeError:
pass
Though it might conflict with other allowed input types of f.coefficient, I
haven't checked
Hi Volker,
On 2012-06-23, Volker Braun wrote:
> f.coefficients() should do "isinstance(X, (int, rings.Integer))" instead of
> just checking for Sage integers.
Shouldn't we rather duck typing? In that way, we could easily avoid
sage: isinstance(long(1),int)
False
(i.e., with your suggestion,
16 matches
Mail list logo
