How should ideas about posets and lattices be collected? (In general:
about some topic X on Sage.)
For example there should be a function to check if a poset is
series-parallel composable, a function to see if a lattice is vertically
indecomposable, an iterator over distributive lattices... An
On Sun, 14 Jun 2015, Johan S. R. Nielsen wrote:
Say I have a ProductPoset class which takes two posets and returns a
poset representing the cartesian product (is this already in Sage?). I
might very well in "real life" research use this construction with both
sides being lattices, in which case
I also vote for making it optional for the moment.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group,
On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Nathann Cohen wrote:
> I vote for the obvious "Let's make it optional first and see how it goes".
> Turning it into a standard package later is a one-line change anyway.
Plus all the doctests, when it is optional, would be marked
# optional - f4
and those
On 2015-06-21 13:57, Vincent Delecroix wrote:
And there is a huge difference in the number of developers between
the two projects which influenced their decision about the release cycle.
But the number of PARI/GP developers is something which OpenDreamKit
will influence, right? That's what I mea
On 21/06/15 12:53, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
On 2015-06-21 05:45, Paulo César Pereira de Andrade wrote:
sagemath should really, really,
rely only on released upstream releases or third party packages.
We have had this discussion many times before and such a requirement
would be a major obstacle for
On 2015-06-21 05:45, Paulo César Pereira de Andrade wrote:
sagemath should really, really,
rely only on released upstream releases or third party packages.
We have had this discussion many times before and such a requirement
would be a major obstacle for serious Sage development. I think it's
b
I'd like to point out that recently http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/12375
was closed. I'd like also to thank here all the participants.
Since sage 6.8.beta5, giac and its cython interface giacpy are avaible as
optional packages.
It provides interesting features in symbolic computations (gcd, f
Hi!
On 2015-06-20, William Stein wrote:
> To clarify, I think these are the options for this vote:
>
> [ ] Yes, make grenoble-f4 a standard Sage package -- this is so
> important we must get it into Sage ASAP.
>
> [ ] No, first make grenoble-f4 an optional Sage package -- we'll
> revisit making i
Am Sonntag, 21. Juni 2015 03:56:43 UTC+2 schrieb Nils Bruin:
>
> On Saturday, June 20, 2015 at 3:34:06 PM UTC-7, Martin R wrote:
>>
>>
>> What is the bug here? Do you think matrix(2,3,1) should succeed? Do you
>> think it should produce a different error message?
>>
>> No, I think that matrix(nr
10 matches
Mail list logo
