Re: [sage-devel] Re: real literals and IEEE-754

On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 1:46 PM, Zimmermann Paul wrote: >Nils, > >> Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 13:18:07 -0800 (PST) >> From: Nils Bruin >> >> On Monday, January 6, 2014 12:46:19 PM UTC-8, Zimmermann Paul wrote: >> >> > What about getting rid of real literals? >> > >> >> I think they exist mainl

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Error building 5.13.beta0 on Solaris 10 SPARC, but gets well beyond the gcc problem reported before.

On 6 January 2014 13:17, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote: > On Monday, January 6, 2014 1:51:47 PM UTC+1, Dr David Kirkby wrote: >> >> On 6 January 2014 10:42, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote: >> >> > Strange, I recently compiled Sage 5.13 on SPARC/Solaris 10. >> > I bootstrapped Sage's GCC using the old Solaris

Re: [sage-devel] Re: real literals and IEEE-754

Hi, On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 01:18:07PM -0800, Nils Bruin wrote: > Here is something I think is really a bug: > > sage: parent(RealField(200)(1) + 1e-20) > Real Field with 53 bits of precision On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 10:46:44PM +0100, Zimmermann Paul wrote: > this demonstrates another inconsistenc

[sage-devel] Re: We need a new color?

Amazingly, this was merged! https://github.com/matplotlib/matplotlib/commit/a3abbb458e7142f76c8d465bba7e85c0bcb4de15 On Wednesday, October 2, 2013 9:55:06 AM UTC-4, kcrisman wrote: > > >> I've submitted a pull request. >> https://github.com/matplotlib/matplotlib/pull/2468 >> >> > If anyone car

[sage-devel] Re: real literals and IEEE-754

Nils, > Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 13:18:07 -0800 (PST) > From: Nils Bruin > > On Monday, January 6, 2014 12:46:19 PM UTC-8, Zimmermann Paul wrote: > > > What about getting rid of real literals? > > > > I think they exist mainly to let > > RealField(200)(1e-20) > > work in the first place

[sage-devel] Re: real literals and IEEE-754

On Monday, January 6, 2014 12:46:19 PM UTC-8, Zimmermann Paul wrote: > What about getting rid of real literals? > I think they exist mainly to let RealField(200)(1e-20) work in the first place: The parser needs to generate code to instantiate the constant 1e-20 somewhere and that constant sho

[sage-devel] real literals and IEEE-754

Hi, [since I am not subscribed to sage-devel, please keep me in cc] the concept of real literals, which was intended (as far as I understand) to keep exactly track of inputs like "1e-20", leads to the following: sage: a=RealField(53)(1e-20) sage: Reals(200)(a) 1.00

[sage-devel] Re: User friendly output for divergant integrals/sum

+1 to more fine-grained exceptions On Monday, January 6, 2014 6:39:56 AM UTC-10, Gregory Bard wrote: > > Perhaps we could get the best of both worlds? > > We could throw a "divergent integral/sum exception" (that can be two > exceptions or one, depending > on how you look at what an integral re

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Broken ticket update on trac?

Well, I did fix it, but the trac server was still pulling up the old one sometimes. I've noticed it does this sometimes unless you restart the apache server, so I did that. On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 6:12 AM, Travis Scrimshaw wrote: > See http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/15637. > > > On Monday, Janu

Re: [sage-devel] Sherlock

On Jan 6, 2014, at 2:02 AM, John Cremona wrote: > On 5 January 2014 23:25, Tom Boothby wrote: >> On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Martin Albrecht >> wrote: >> I remember that dinner... where I had license discussions with an intoxicated Germans... >>> >>> Makes sense: as far as I know

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Review needed for some combinatorial constructions

On 6 January 2014 15:27, Stefan wrote: > Ok, done. I wanted to proceed with #15285, but I don't know how. It seems > that I must first merge #15107 into the develop branch, then merge that > thing into this ticket, to see what this ticket does relative to the other > one... right? > > By the way,

[sage-devel] Re: User friendly output for divergant integrals/sum

Perhaps we could get the best of both worlds? We could throw a "divergent integral/sum exception" (that can be two exceptions or one, depending on how you look at what an integral really is...) This way, the calculus student would see the words "divergent integral" and know what it means. Howe

[sage-devel] Re: Broken ticket update on trac?

See http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/15637. On Monday, January 6, 2014 1:58:01 AM UTC-8, Volker Braun wrote: > > Andrew assured me that he had fixed that bug about 5 hours ago... maybe > you can email him with the stack trace thats on the error page. > > > > On Sunday, January 5, 2014 11:25:18 PM

[sage-devel] Re: Review needed for some combinatorial constructions

Ok, done. I wanted to proceed with #15285, but I don't know how. It seems that I must first merge #15107 into the develop branch, then merge that thing into this ticket, to see what this ticket does relative to the other one... right? By the way, could the developer guide be updated (esp. the "

Re: [sage-devel] Broken ticket update on trac?

I just got exactly the same issue when trying to add my name as Author on http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/11985 Trac detected an internal error: TypeError: object of type 'listreverseiterator' has no len() Python Traceback Most recent call last: File "/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Error building 5.13.beta0 on Solaris 10 SPARC, but gets well beyond the gcc problem reported before.

On Monday, January 6, 2014 2:17:33 PM UTC+1, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote: > > > > On Monday, January 6, 2014 1:51:47 PM UTC+1, Dr David Kirkby wrote: >> >> On 6 January 2014 10:42, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote: >> >> > Strange, I recently compiled Sage 5.13 on SPARC/Solaris 10. >> > I bootstrapped Sage

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Error building 5.13.beta0 on Solaris 10 SPARC, but gets well beyond the gcc problem reported before.

On Monday, January 6, 2014 1:51:47 PM UTC+1, Dr David Kirkby wrote: > > On 6 January 2014 10:42, Jean-Pierre Flori > > wrote: > > > Strange, I recently compiled Sage 5.13 on SPARC/Solaris 10. > > I bootstrapped Sage's GCC using the old Solaris provided gcc 3.4.3 and > got > > no problems wit

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Error building 5.13.beta0 on Solaris 10 SPARC, but gets well beyond the gcc problem reported before.

On 6 January 2014 10:42, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote: > Strange, I recently compiled Sage 5.13 on SPARC/Solaris 10. > I bootstrapped Sage's GCC using the old Solaris provided gcc 3.4.3 and got > no problems with ATLAS. > Could you post the full failed atlas build log somewhere? http://boxen.math.w

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Broken ticket update on trac?

We are all at Sage Days 56; he should check in on this in the morning. David On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 12:45 AM, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote: > > > On Monday, January 6, 2014 10:58:01 AM UTC+1, Volker Braun wrote: >> >> Andrew assured me that he had fixed that bug about 5 hours ago... maybe >> you can

[sage-devel] Re: Broken ticket update on trac?

On Monday, January 6, 2014 10:58:01 AM UTC+1, Volker Braun wrote: > > Andrew assured me that he had fixed that bug about 5 hours ago... maybe > you can email him with the stack trace thats on the error page. > > Still dysfunctional for me :( The complete error message I got is down there in my q

[sage-devel] Re: Error building 5.13.beta0 on Solaris 10 SPARC, but gets well beyond the gcc problem reported before.

On Monday, January 6, 2014 11:42:47 AM UTC+1, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote: > > > > On Monday, January 6, 2014 11:27:29 AM UTC+1, Dr David Kirkby wrote: >> >> I notice someone had problems building the gcc package on marc. Well >> on my Solaris 10 box, I get well beyond that. The problem, as I have

[sage-devel] Re: Error building 5.13.beta0 on Solaris 10 SPARC, but gets well beyond the gcc problem reported before.

On Monday, January 6, 2014 11:27:29 AM UTC+1, Dr David Kirkby wrote: > > I notice someone had problems building the gcc package on marc. Well > on my Solaris 10 box, I get well beyond that. The problem, as I have > reported before, is that the ATLAS is sending GNU specific options > (e.g. -- n

[sage-devel] Offer of Solaris 10 SPARC access

I understand from the sage-devel list, that there is a problem with gap on Solaris 10, and you don't have access to a Solaris 10 SPARC machine. I can offer such access if you want. Drop me a private email, with a username you want. I'll have to set up dynamic DNS or similar so you know the dynamic

Re: [sage-devel] Solaris SPARC & GAP

I'll do that. On 6 January 2014 10:08, Volker Braun wrote: > The newest GAP doesn't build on Sparc and the developers don't have access > to such a machine. If you can give them an account then please contact > http://www.gap-system.org. > > BUG: http://tracker.gap-system.org/issues/461 > > -- >

[sage-devel] Error building 5.13.beta0 on Solaris 10 SPARC, but gets well beyond the gcc problem reported before.

I notice someone had problems building the gcc package on marc. Well on my Solaris 10 box, I get well beyond that. The problem, as I have reported before, is that the ATLAS is sending GNU specific options (e.g. -- no-whole-archive and --whole-archive) to the Sun linker, which it does not reconise,

[sage-devel] Solaris SPARC & GAP

The newest GAP doesn't build on Sparc and the developers don't have access to such a machine. If you can give them an account then please contact http://www.gap-system.org. BUG: http://tracker.gap-system.org/issues/461 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Grou

[sage-devel] Re: Broken ticket update on trac?

Andrew assured me that he had fixed that bug about 5 hours ago... maybe you can email him with the stack trace thats on the error page. On Sunday, January 5, 2014 11:25:18 PM UTC-10, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote: > > Hi all, > > I'm getting > """ > Oops… > *Trac detected an internal error:* > > Ty

[sage-devel] Broken ticket update on trac?

Hi all, I'm getting """ Oops… *Trac detected an internal error:* TypeError: object of type 'listreverseiterator' has no len() There was an internal error in Trac. It is recommended that you notify your local Trac administrator with the information needed to reproduce the issue. To that end

Re: [sage-devel] Guys, it takes one minute to load every single page of trac. We have to do something about it.

Thaaanks ! :-) Nathann On 6 January 2014 09:41, Keith Clawson wrote: > CPU usage on the trac VM has dramatically decreased. Good work, Andrew! > > > > > > On Saturd

Re: Re: [sage-devel] Sherlock

On 5 January 2014 23:25, Tom Boothby wrote: > On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Martin Albrecht > wrote: > >>> I remember that dinner... where I had license discussions with an >>> intoxicated Germans... >> >> Makes sense: as far as I know the Sage rule is you're *only* allowed to >> discuss licen

Re: [sage-devel] Guys, it takes one minute to load every single page of trac. We have to do something about it.

CPU usage on the trac VM has dramatically decreased. Good work, Andrew! On Saturday, January 4, 2014 2:40:38 PM UTC-8, R. Andrew Ohana wrote: > > Ok, I just deployed the rewritten sage