On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 06:23:04AM +, Simon King wrote:
> X
>
> In some context, the technical term ``self`` might be easier to
> understand (for someone who knows python...) than natural language,
> in other context it may be the other way around
>
> Maybe +1 as a rule of thumb, but -1 as a
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:32:47PM -0700, Volker Braun wrote:
>I'd try to avoid the entire construct; Its the linguistic equivalent of
>if condition:
> return True
>else:
>return False
>Just say "Test condition" in the docstring.
Yes, I agree!!! If we want to stick
On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 4:01 PM, Jori Mäntysalo wrote:
> On Mon, 22 May 2017, Vincent Delecroix wrote:
>
>> 1) add an option inplace=True/False. There is at least one such method in
>> Sage: the relabel method for graphs. The behavior is as follows:
>
>
> inplace is mentioned at
> http://doc.sagem
On Mon, 22 May 2017, Vincent Delecroix wrote:
1) add an option inplace=True/False. There is at least one such method in
Sage: the relabel method for graphs. The behavior is as follows:
inplace is mentioned at
http://doc.sagemath.org/html/en/developer/coding_basics.html#miscellanous-minor-thin
On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 2:41:17 PM UTC+2, vdelecroix wrote:
>
>
> Yes! A function in Python always return a unique object. This object
> might be a tuple or a list with several components.
Ok. Now I understand how you view things.
I always thought it is a common idiom in Python that when
Hi,
On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 02:35:43PM +0200, Vincent Delecroix wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I would like to have inplace version of transpose for matrices. For the
> echelon form we have methods mat.echelonize vs mat.echelon_form. However I
> do not see how to deal with transpose in the same way. I se
On 22/05/2017 14:43, Erik Bray wrote:
On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 2:35 PM, Vincent Delecroix
<20100.delecr...@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear all,
I would like to have inplace version of transpose for matrices. For the
echelon form we have methods mat.echelonize vs mat.echelon_form. However I
do not see h
On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 2:35 PM, Vincent Delecroix
<20100.delecr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I would like to have inplace version of transpose for matrices. For the
> echelon form we have methods mat.echelonize vs mat.echelon_form. However I
> do not see how to deal with transpose in the s
On 22/05/2017 14:35, Kwankyu Lee wrote:
It seems that some misunderstanding is going on here.
If a method returns an integer and a matrix by "Return n, m". I am saying
that the output block can be simply
OUTPUT:
- integer ...
- matrix ...
instead of
OUTPUT: a tuple of ``(n,m)`` where
- ``n
Dear all,
I would like to have inplace version of transpose for matrices. For the
echelon form we have methods mat.echelonize vs mat.echelon_form. However
I do not see how to deal with transpose in the same way. I see three
reasonable possibilities
1) add an option inplace=True/False. There
It seems that some misunderstanding is going on here.
If a method returns an integer and a matrix by "Return n, m". I am saying
that the output block can be simply
OUTPUT:
- integer ...
- matrix ...
instead of
OUTPUT: a tuple of ``(n,m)`` where
- ``n`` is a integer ...
- ``m`` is a matrix
Let T = Posets.TamariLattice(7). Then for example
%timeit
T.is_simple()
gives 1,41 seconds, whereas
%timeit
_ = T.lequal_matrix()
T.is_simple()
says 0,67 seconds. (You must restart the worksheet between tests,
because meet- and join-matrices are saved.)
Is it OK to add a call to lequal_matr
On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 10:27:28 AM UTC+2, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>
>
> > The only thing I want to see in the OUTPUT
> > block is
> > the *type* of the objects and how many of them.
>
> Why that? What's wrong with being verbose in the OUTPUT block?
>
The OUTPUT block appearing below other,
On Mon, 22 May 2017, Daniel Krenn wrote:
My opinion is that the phrase "a tuple `(a,b,c)` where ..." is just
redundant.
I think that "a tuple" is important non-redundant information.
+1 for "a tuple" in this case (and not skipping this information; it is
essential)
+1 from me too. Somethin
On 2017-05-22 12:08, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> On 2017-05-22 12:05, Kwankyu Lee wrote:
>> My opinion is that the phrase "a tuple `(a,b,c)` where ..." is just
>> redundant.
>
> I think that "a tuple" is important non-redundant information.
+1 for "a tuple" in this case (and not skipping this informa
On 2017-05-22 12:21, Kwankyu Lee wrote:
The non-redundant information will be implied by the list of hyphened
items, if we stick to the convention.
So, in order to understand the docstring, the user needs to read the
docstring and the convention on how to read the docstring. Not good!
--
You
On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 12:08:35 PM UTC+2, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>
> On 2017-05-22 12:05, Kwankyu Lee wrote:
> > My opinion is that the phrase "a tuple `(a,b,c)` where ..." is just
> > redundant.
>
> I think that "a tuple" is important non-redundant information.
>
The non-redundant inform
On 2017-05-22 12:05, Kwankyu Lee wrote:
My opinion is that the phrase "a tuple `(a,b,c)` where ..." is just
redundant.
I think that "a tuple" is important non-redundant information.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe
On 2017-05-22 12:05, Kwankyu Lee wrote:
This is ugly. By your previous opinion, wouldn't you prefer this?
|
OUTPUT:a tuple of ``(a,b,c)``where
-``a``is...
-``b``is...
-``c``is...
|
I think that the guideline of this thread combined with your one-liner
style for OUTPUT allows this.
Of cours
On 2017-05-22 11:35, Jori Mäntysalo wrote:
Why that? What's wrong with being verbose in the OUTPUT block?
This is a misquote.
I meant to reply to Sébastien Labbé.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group
On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 10:24:32 AM UTC+2, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>
> I very much object to this:
>
> > If the output consists
> > of several items, add each starting with a hyphen.
>
> If the output consists of several items, the OUTPUT string should
> clearly mention that fact (and it sho
On Mon, 22 May 2017, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
On 2017-05-19 14:16, Jori Mäntysalo wrote:
The only thing I want to see in the OUTPUT block is the *type* of the
objects and how many of them.
Why that? What's wrong with being verbose in the OUTPUT block?
This is a misquote. I support something
On 2017-05-19 14:16, Jori Mäntysalo wrote:
The only thing I want to see in the OUTPUT
block is
the *type* of the objects and how many of them.
Why that? What's wrong with being verbose in the OUTPUT block?
I would like something like
INPUT:
- ``certificate`` -- boolean; whether to output a c
I very much object to this:
If the output consists
of several items, add each starting with a hyphen.
If the output consists of several items, the OUTPUT string should
clearly mention that fact (and it should mention whether the output is a
tuple or list or some other structure with several
reported in
https://ask.sagemath.org/question/37660/why-is-sage-calling-1-a-variable/
===
sage: x = var('x')
sage: f = 1/(x-3)
sage: limit(f,x=3,dir='below')
---
UnboundLocalError Trac
25 matches
Mail list logo
