[sage-devel] Re: Quick Question about Cython

2014-01-19 Thread Nils Bruin
On Saturday, January 18, 2014 7:46:07 PM UTC-8, ref...@uncg.edu wrote: > > Before I begin, I'd like to thank you in advance for any help you may give. > > I'm trying to learn cython, and I'd like to use the RealNumber class. I'd > like to take a RealNumber as input, and compute the square of the

Re: [sage-devel] numbers in numpy fight sage

2014-01-19 Thread Nils Bruin
On Sunday, January 19, 2014 9:58:08 AM UTC-8, Nils Bruin wrote: > > There is, as diagnosed above. It's just so trivial that the administrative > burden of applying it to sage becomes significant by comparison, and > dealing with admin is never attractive. There is now > Oops sorry. Wrong ticket n

Re: [sage-devel] numbers in numpy fight sage

2014-01-19 Thread Nils Bruin
On Sunday, January 19, 2014 1:37:07 AM UTC-8, Bernhard Spinnler wrote: > > It's a pity that there doesn't seem to be an easy fix for this. There is, as diagnosed above. It's just so trivial that the administrative burden of applying it to sage becomes significant by comparison, and dealing with

[sage-devel] bug in doctesting framework

2014-01-19 Thread P Purkayastha
>From what I remember, doctesting a file using sage -btnew used to work from all directories. It doesn't right now because it doesn't take the relative path or absolute path into account. The paths are all relative to SAGE_ROOT. ...ations/sage/src/sage/plotĀ» sage -btnew scons: `install' is up

Re: [sage-devel] numbers in numpy fight sage

2014-01-19 Thread Bernhard Spinnler
On 05.01.2014, at 02:36, Nils Bruin wrote: > It's an odd confluence of circumstances that makes numpy.float64 behave this > way. The code that causes the problem is this: > > sage/structure/coerce.pyx:965 (cpdef canonical_coercion) >elif y_numeric: >try: >sa

[sage-devel] Re: Quick Question about Cython

2014-01-19 Thread refarr
Dear All, I have yet another question. I'm trying to compute many values of the logarithm and store them into memory for future use. Is there any way to get around the initialization of x within the for loop? If I delete that line, then all the values of the loop will be the same... How can