On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 5:59:21 PM UTC, john_perry_usm wrote:
>
> If there be are any Sage devs who lately have felt too successful and/or
> appreciate, here's some cold water for your next shower.
>
> I teach a class where students learn some "advanced" math topics using
> Sage. Naturally,
On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 9:59:21 AM UTC-8, john_perry_usm wrote:
>
> I teach a class where students learn some "advanced" math topics using
> Sage. Naturally, talking about Sage is part of that. I gave a test today,
> with the following T/F question that I *thought* would be easy:
>
> Sage is
On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 10:52:58 AM UTC-8, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>
> But, proposing that we get rid of symbolic expressions in piecewise
> functions is stronger than the proposal to get rid of unnamed arguments.
> This works, and accounts for just about every use of piecewise() you'll
> fi
> On 5/03/2016, at 07:23, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>
> On 03/04/2016 09:01 AM, kcrisman wrote:
>>
>>
>>The problem, as I see it, is that Sage has built up over the years its
>>own ad-hoc packaging system. This is actually really cool, because
>>it's what's allowed Sage to be instal
On 03/02/2016 11:45 AM, Nils Bruin wrote:
>
> It's easy to explain "expressions do not support calling syntax. You
> need a function for that".
> It's hard to explain "expressions don't really support calling, except
> in some edge cases that you will initially encounter most".
> By having the mud
That made me laugh so much.
Thumbs up to the guy that trolled you.
--
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 pos
On 03/04/2016 09:01 AM, kcrisman wrote:
>
>
> The problem, as I see it, is that Sage has built up over the years its
> own ad-hoc packaging system. This is actually really cool, because
> it's what's allowed Sage to be installable on a wide range of
> platforms! I think this hap
On 03/04/2016 12:59 PM, john_perry_usm wrote:
>
> I'm about halfway through, and *no one* has gotten full credit on the
> problem. To be fair, two people marked it False, but they were also
> supposed to provide a true statement. One provided no statement, and the
> other -- I am not making this u
If there be are any Sage devs who lately have felt too successful and/or
appreciate, here's some cold water for your next shower.
I teach a class where students learn some "advanced" math topics using
Sage. Naturally, talking about Sage is part of that. I gave a test today,
with the following T
>
>
>
> The problem, as I see it, is that Sage has built up over the years its
> own ad-hoc packaging system. This is actually really cool, because
> it's what's allowed Sage to be installable on a wide range of
> platforms! I think this happened sort of organically over time, as
> various d
On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Salvatore Stella wrote:
> Dear All,
> I have a philosophical question concerning how we implement things in sage.
> More precisely I am concerned on how we deal with external packages.
>
> Right now we implement our own package management system and we install
> (a
On 2016-03-04 11:21, Salvatore Stella wrote:
especially when you consider that
among the duplicated things there are some heavy package to compile like
gcc
GCC is only installed if needed. If Sage installs GCC, it must be that
your system GCC is either outdated of incomplete (missing Fortran?).
Dear All,
I have a philosophical question concerning how we implement things in sage.
More precisely I am concerned on how we deal with external packages.
Right now we implement our own package management system and we install
(almost) all our dependencies under whichever prefix the user gives to
13 matches
Mail list logo
