On Friday, October 16, 2015 at 4:52:20 PM UTC+2, Daniel Krenn wrote:
>
> sage: bool(I>0)
> True
>
> Is there a ticket for this on trac?
>
http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/17700
which practically depends on
http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/19312
Note that with the latter comes ex.holds() so you
On Friday, October 16, 2015 at 2:22:41 PM UTC-7, John Cremona wrote:
>
> Obviously, any mathematician would expect the mathematically sensible
> answer of "undefined". And yes, I do know why that is not what
> happens in python.
>
Wrong, that IS what happens in python
Python 2.7.10 (default,
On 16 October 2015 at 17:16, Vincent Delecroix
<20100.delecr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 16/10/15 11:52, Daniel Krenn wrote:
>> sage: bool(I>0)
>> True
>>
>> Is there a ticket for this on trac?
>
> What answer would you expect?
Obviously, any mathematician would expect the mathematically sensible
an
On 16/10/15 11:52, Daniel Krenn wrote:
> sage: bool(I>0)
> True
>
> Is there a ticket for this on trac?
What answer would you expect?
sage: CC(0,1) > CC(0,0)
True
Sage uses lexicographic ordering for CC.
Vincent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sa
> in the logs for 19344:
>
> +[graphs ] None:3: WARNING: citation not found: Kohnert07
I see. So this information will not be found in the shortlog, and only
in the log.
Nathann
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe fr
in the logs for 19344:
+[graphs ] None:3: WARNING: citation not found: Kohnert07
Le vendredi 16 octobre 2015 19:29:14 UTC+2, Nathann Cohen a écrit :
>
> > I know that the patchbot seems to have spurious problems with the doc
> > precisely with the official releases. But this is not the case he
As far as doctests go, we have now figured out how to successfully remove
the problematic "hash(str(a))" implementation on sage Element. The ticket
just needs some trivial doctest additions to make a beancounting patchbot
plugin happy. The changes on the ticket are pretty straightforward, but th
> I know that the patchbot seems to have spurious problems with the doc
> precisely with the official releases. But this is not the case here.
I see. I first wrote this bug report about #19344 then changed the
ticket number to simplify the bug report (which thus becomes wrong, as
you noticed :-/).
Hello,
I know that the patchbot seems to have spurious problems with the doc
precisely with the official releases. But this is not the case here.
you can find the doc failure in the doc plugin result by searching for
WARNING:
http://patchbot.sagemath.org/log/19353/Ubuntu/15.04/x86_64/3.19.0-30-
Nathann - Looks great - thanks! -Rob
On Friday, October 16, 2015 at 3:38:41 AM UTC-7, Nathann Cohen wrote:
>
> Helloo,
>
> > Yes, I think if the documentation screams "implements a symmetric
> relation"
> > that would be a big improvement. And maybe a doctest illustrating how
> it
> > c
Hello everybody,
I have two remarks to make about the patchbot, and I have no idea if I am just
misinterpreting/misreading or if there is something wrong:
1) The ticket at #19353 fails to build the doc. I built it manually and noticed
a missing reference ([Kohnert07]), though this missed refer
sage: bool(I>0)
True
Is there a ticket for this on trac?
Daniel
--
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
Le 16/10/2015 11:20, Samuel Lelievre a écrit :
2015-10-12 22:45:08 UTC+2, Snark:
Le lundi 12 oct. 2015 à 13:02:38 (-0700), Volker Braun a écrit :
> On Monday, October 12, 2015 at 3:46:29 PM UTC+2, Snark wrote:
> >
> > Does that mean that the libgap in sagemath will get part
On Thursday, October 15, 2015, Bill Page wrote:
> The version of pexpect with the new option is still a branch called
>
> https://github.com/pexpect/pexpect/tree/superfluous-sleep
>
> I think they are waiting for us to say that it works with Sage.
>
Make sure to test the latency/speed/overhead u
Helloo,
> Yes, I think if the documentation screams "implements a symmetric relation"
> that would be a big improvement. And maybe a doctest illustrating how it
> can go bad?
I added a mention that the function should be symmetric, and just
pushed a new doctest for that:
http://git.sag
2015-10-12 22:45:08 UTC+2, Snark:
>
> Le lundi 12 oct. 2015 à 13:02:38 (-0700), Volker Braun a écrit :
> > On Monday, October 12, 2015 at 3:46:29 PM UTC+2, Snark wrote:
> > >
> > > Does that mean that the libgap in sagemath will get part of upstream
> GAP?
> > >
> >
> > A better interop bet
16 matches
Mail list logo
