Nice, thanks for forwarding. I forwarded in turn to
- the dormant "debian-sage" list [1],
- the recently created "sage-packaging" list [2],
where even more people might be interested.
I also updated the "Distribution" wiki page [3] to mention
the newly created "debian-science-sagemath" list.
[1]
Also, we have an old version of FriCAS, current is 1.2.7.
I just opened
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/21209 (update the package)
On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 5:46:55 PM UTC+1, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 4:43:27 PM UTC+1, Daniel Krenn wrote:
>>
>> On my
On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 4:43:27 PM UTC+1, Daniel Krenn wrote:
>
> On my SageMath 7.3 on Linux Mint 17.3 the command "sage -i fricas"
> fails. Part of the logfile is below. If someone wants more of the
> logfile, do not hesitate to ask.
>
> Any ideas what goes wrong?
>
ECL does not u
On my SageMath 7.3 on Linux Mint 17.3 the command "sage -i fricas"
fails. Part of the logfile is below. If someone wants more of the
logfile, do not hesitate to ask.
Any ideas what goes wrong?
Best
Daniel
[...]
ECL (Embeddable Common-Lisp) 16.1.2 (git:UNKNOWN)
Copyright (C) 1984 Taiichi Yuasa
On 2016-08-10 17:02, Travis Scrimshaw wrote:
However, this does have a problem that if we
don't enable them by default interactively, we get different output
behaviors.
We already have that for normal exceptions, where IPython does fancy
formatting of tracebacks.
Command-line:
---
On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 8:33:33 AM UTC-5, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>
> On 2016-08-10 14:36, Travis Scrimshaw wrote:
> > To clarify, I did not say doctests.
>
> Well, you replied on a paragraph from me about doctests, so I assumed
> that we were talking about doctests.
Ah, sorry, I was
Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> If the error is 1 ulp or more for a basic function (like log) on a
> reasonable non-pathological input (like 3.0), I would consider that
> an upstream bug.
Quite a few implementations only provide accuracies of 3-4 ulp for speed
reasons (it may make it possible to use doub
On 2016-08-10 16:14, leif wrote:
Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
On 2016-08-10 15:25, leif wrote:
Is there a specific reason that for example mpfr.pxd and mpc.pxd lack a
distutils directive?
No.
Are you willing to open a ticket, or should I?
I don't care much. This would just be doing something for
Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> On 2016-08-10 15:25, leif wrote:
>> Is there a specific reason that for example mpfr.pxd and mpc.pxd lack a
>> distutils directive?
>
> No.
Are you willing to open a ticket, or should I?
> But just adding the "# distutils" directive might not be the right thing
> to do e
leif wrote:
> Is there a specific reason that for example mpfr.pxd and mpc.pxd lack a
> distutils directive?
Also, the library_order in module_list.py is slightly wrong by the way:
gmpxx should precede gmp, mpc should precede mpfr, and m should come
almost last (just like stdc++) I think.
(But t
On 2016-08-10 15:25, leif wrote:
Is there a specific reason that for example mpfr.pxd and mpc.pxd lack a
distutils directive?
No.
But just adding the "# distutils" directive might not be the right thing
to do either. I usually split up the type declarations from the function
declarations, se
On 2016-08-10 14:36, Travis Scrimshaw wrote:
To clarify, I did not say doctests.
Well, you replied on a paragraph from me about doctests, so I assumed
that we were talking about doctests. So again, what's your opinion then?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Googl
Is there a specific reason that for example mpfr.pxd and mpc.pxd lack a
distutils directive?
-leif
--
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+uns
On 2016-08-10 13:38, Erik Bray wrote:
1) Is it worth investigating the reason for the difference?
No, but it is worth determining how bad the error is. In all cases, I
would say that an error of less than 1 ulp is totally acceptable. If the
error is 1 ulp or more for a basic function (like lo
Erik Bray wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Sorry if this has been discussed ad-infinitum before--I looked around
> a bit but didn't find a definitive answer.
>
> I have one (well at least one) test that's failing on Cygwin due to
> tiny difference in the last digit of the result of log(3).
>
> This leads to
William Stein wrote:
> I'm googling for links to the sage reference manual, e.g.,
>
>
> https://www.google.com/search?q=sage+Elements+of+Quotients+of+Univariate+Polynomial+Rings&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS691US691&oq=sage+Elements+of+Quotients+of+Univariate+Polynomial+Rings&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i64.1153j0
Le 10/08/2016 à 13:38, Erik Bray a écrit :
> Hi all,
>
> Sorry if this has been discussed ad-infinitum before--I looked around
> a bit but didn't find a definitive answer.
>
> I have one (well at least one) test that's failing on Cygwin due to
> tiny difference in the last digit of the result of
On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 3:24:23 AM UTC-5, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>
> On 2016-08-10 00:48, Travis Scrimshaw wrote:
> > a typical user who just wants to run some simple code.
>
> If he is running doctests, that is already beyond a "typical user".
>
To clarify, I did not say doctests. I
Hey Erik,
It seems like what you want is # rel tol XYZ or # abs tol XYZ. For an
example, see rings/real_double.pyx.
Best,
Travis
On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 6:38:59 AM UTC-5, Erik Bray wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Sorry if this has been discussed ad-infinitum before--I looked around
> a bit
Hi all,
Sorry if this has been discussed ad-infinitum before--I looked around
a bit but didn't find a definitive answer.
I have one (well at least one) test that's failing on Cygwin due to
tiny difference in the last digit of the result of log(3).
This leads to to several questions:
1) Is it wo
Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> On 2016-08-10 00:48, Travis Scrimshaw wrote:
>> a typical user who just wants to run some simple code.
>
> If he is running doctests, that is already beyond a "typical user".
So potentially anyone building from source is an untypical user?
On 2016-08-10 00:48, Travis Scrimshaw wrote:
a typical user who just wants to run some simple code.
If he is running doctests, that is already beyond a "typical user".
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this gro
On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 6:22:06 PM UTC-7, Nils Bruin wrote:
>
> A quick inquiry:
>
> I noticed that fast_callable(...,domain=RealField(...) ) results in
> instances of RRInterpreter, which is nice and fast. On the other hand,
> fast_callable(...,domain=ComplexField(...)) results in a more g
23 matches
Mail list logo
