Hi Timo.
On 2018-12-25, Timo Kaufmann wrote:
> I don't really see a reason to rename it. The old name doesn't suggest that
> it is implemented with pexpect.
No, it does, by tradiation:
AFAIK, *ALL* interfaces that are named after a third-party computer algebra
projects (gap, singular, r, pari,
I don't really see a reason to rename it. The old name doesn't suggest that
it is implemented with pexpect. The implementation by definition should be
an implementation detail, the behaviour is largely the same.
Am Dienstag, 25. Dezember 2018 23:40:00 UTC+1 schrieb Andrey Novoseltsev:
>
>
>
> On
On Tuesday, 25 December 2018 14:55:02 UTC-7, Timo Kaufmann wrote:
>
> Am Dienstag, 25. Dezember 2018 22:46:22 UTC+1 schrieb Nils Bruin:
>>
>> Perhaps for reference, maxima_lib can only be instantiated once and,
>> since sage.interfaces.maxima_lib is only referenced at start-up via
>> lazy_impor
Am Dienstag, 25. Dezember 2018 22:46:22 UTC+1 schrieb Nils Bruin:
>
> Perhaps for reference, maxima_lib can only be instantiated once and, since
> sage.interfaces.maxima_lib is only referenced at start-up via lazy_import
> (which has its own problems), the instantiation happens upon import of
>
Am Dienstag, 25. Dezember 2018 22:04:06 UTC+1 schrieb Andrey Novoseltsev:
>
> On Tuesday, 25 December 2018 13:53:07 UTC-7, Timo Kaufmann wrote:
>>
>> Am Dienstag, 25. Dezember 2018 16:32:10 UTC+1 schrieb Andrey Novoseltsev:
>>>
>>> It does not affect me personally at all, my use of R is limited t
Perhaps for reference, maxima_lib can only be instantiated once and, since
sage.interfaces.maxima_lib is only referenced at start-up via lazy_import
(which has its own problems), the instantiation happens upon import of
sage.interfaces.maxima_lib:
sage: import sage.interfaces.maxima_lib
sage: s
On Tuesday, 25 December 2018 13:53:07 UTC-7, Timo Kaufmann wrote:
>
> Am Dienstag, 25. Dezember 2018 16:32:10 UTC+1 schrieb Andrey Novoseltsev:
>>
>> It does not affect me personally at all, my use of R is limited to making
>> it work in SageMathCell. But if there is only one instance, then I thin
Am Dienstag, 25. Dezember 2018 16:32:10 UTC+1 schrieb Andrey Novoseltsev:
>
> On Tuesday, 25 December 2018 03:55:13 UTC-7, vdelecroix wrote:
>>
>> Since there is only one process, there should be a single instance of
>> the R object in Sage. Isn't that a trivial fix?
>>
>> Disallowing multiple
Am Dienstag, 25. Dezember 2018 11:55:13 UTC+1 schrieb vdelecroix:
>
> Le 25/12/2018 à 11:01, Timo Kaufmann a écrit :
> >
> > Am Dienstag, 25. Dezember 2018 00:25:40 UTC+1 schrieb William:
> >
> >> Just to be clear, I fully support your choice.
> >
> >
> > Glad to hear that :)
> >
> >
Answering my own question: this was indeed a bug.
The fix is basically a 1-liner which is now up for review:
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/26958
S.
On Sunday, December 23, 2018 at 4:26:39 PM UTC+1, Salvatore Stella wrote:
>
> Dear All,
> I just came acreoss the following strange behavior:
>
On Tuesday, 25 December 2018 03:55:13 UTC-7, vdelecroix wrote:
>
> Since there is only one process, there should be a single instance of
> the R object in Sage. Isn't that a trivial fix?
>
> Disallowing multiple R instances might be a misfeature. But it is not
> dramatic (to my mind and to the O
Le 25/12/2018 à 11:01, Timo Kaufmann a écrit :
Am Dienstag, 25. Dezember 2018 00:25:40 UTC+1 schrieb William:
Just to be clear, I fully support your choice.
Glad to hear that :)
By "both should be
supported, since they have complementary functionality (pros and cons
to each)... Oh wel
Am Dienstag, 25. Dezember 2018 00:25:40 UTC+1 schrieb William:
> Just to be clear, I fully support your choice.
Glad to hear that :)
> By "both should be
> supported, since they have complementary functionality (pros and cons
> to each)... Oh well." I mean "I personally think both should
13 matches
Mail list logo
