Current Cython version didn't work either. I didn't get a chance to finish
with the included GCC. I've pulled in beta2, ran make distclean, added
#19054 (instead of my fix), and trying that now. If that doesn't work
In related news, I just ran into http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/13947 using
bo
Apart from not spewing the entire log to stdout (can anybody read that
fast?), we should re-print the prompt on keyboard input thats not "y" or "n"
On Thursday, August 20, 2015 at 4:31:48 PM UTC-4, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>
> On 2015-08-18 10:51, Nathann Cohen wrote:
> >> Since I maintain an opt
On 2015-08-18 23:20, Stefan wrote:
Can I give something like this positive review, in spite of the trac
website messing things up?
Yes, the git Trac plugin is known to sometimes give wrong diffs. What
matters is what the command-line git says.
Jeroen.
--
You received this message because yo
On 2015-08-19 11:31, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote:
On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 at 12:21:36 PM UTC+2, vdelecroix wrote:
Note that all the solutions given will *copy* the mpz_t to the Integer.
Is that what you want? It is also possible to avoid the copy if it is
worth it (i.e. you have
On 2015-08-18 10:51, Nathann Cohen wrote:
Since I maintain an optional package that depends on another optional
package that must not be automatically installed because of licence:
Will the automatic installation of dependencies be involve asking the
user if the licence of the dependency is not G
On 08/20/2015 02:40 PM, Nathann Cohen wrote:
> I'm working on a paper where we coin a new term and implement a new
> algorithm. I'd like to cite Sage as an implementation, but then I
> have a
> chicken and egg problem.
>
>
> If your algorithm is complicated and "needs a proof", t
What I would do is:
- Write the code and put it on a ticket.
- Post the paper on the arXiv, citing Sage.
- Reference the arXiv version in the initial patch just saying preprint.
- Change the reference once the paper is accepted and published (which is
super easy, and it's not like we have a short
> The simplest solution is to write the code up in a my_code.sage file,
> post it somewhere, and include examples in your paper.
If you do that or if you try the '.spkg' approach, be careful that the
code you need is available in the *latest stable release* and not only
in the latest beta.
With t
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 2:17 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> I'm working on a paper where we coin a new term and implement a new
> algorithm. I'd like to cite Sage as an implementation, but then I have a
> chicken and egg problem.
>
> I'd like the code to work before we submit the paper.. but to do
>
> I'm working on a paper where we coin a new term and implement a new
> algorithm. I'd like to cite Sage as an implementation, but then I have a
> chicken and egg problem.
If your algorithm is complicated and "needs a proof", then I'd personally
feel prefer to wait till the paper is accept
I'm working on a paper where we coin a new term and implement a new
algorithm. I'd like to cite Sage as an implementation, but then I have a
chicken and egg problem.
I'd like the code to work before we submit the paper.. but to do that, I
need to add a method that only appears in our paper. The on
With http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/18182 we can use pushout categorial
constructions (via functors) for cartesian products. This one can do
arithematic with them and the coercion framework works.
Unfortunately, there is the following strange bug:
sage: from sage.categories.pushout import pus
On Wed, 19 Aug 2015, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
Sage(nb) does not ship its own ssl implementation, so it got to updated
elsewhere.
OK, but does it contain a configuration file for ssl? Or some commands
that use system-wide ssl without configuration?
At least Ubuntu tells how to disable SSLv3 ---
13 matches
Mail list logo
