Hi,
It seems to me that currently only two patchbots are reliably testing
patches. One of them is "hades" that I am running temporarily. Owners of
patchbots should check if his or her patchbot is polluting trac with wrong
results rather than helping reviewers.
--
You received this message be
Julien,
[By the way, the optional spkg which is relevant here is
database_cremona_ellcurve and *not* elliptic_curves.]
I have tried your new py code to produce a new version of the database
file: it appears to work perfectly, and will compare it with what the
existing Sage code creates. I know r
Typing "Installing Python modules" in a reasonable search engine
gives me reasonable links
https://docs.python.org/3/installing/index.html
https://docs.python.org/3/distributing/index.html
You definitely don't need to modify the Sage source code.
If it is jut a matter of testing then the PYTH
I'm not sure I fully understand. What does it precisely mean to install my
module? I'm able to put the package into the sage src folder, add imports
to all.py etc. This will make the doctests work. However, that has the
major drawback that I have to run "make" in the sage folder everytime I
wan
On 8/20/19 8:24 AM, Benjamin Schmidt wrote:
> I have a folder example with two files: An empty __init__.py and an
> example.py with the following code:
>
> def square(n):
> r"""
> EXAMPLES::
>
> sage: from example.example import square
> sage: square(2)
> 4
> "
You first need to *install* your module. Otherwise your example.py
can not be found by Python (or Sage). You can also hack the
PYTHON_PATH if it is for testing purposes.
Vincent
Le 20/08/2019 à 14:24, Benjamin Schmidt a écrit :
I ran into an issue regarding sage doctests. Once I don't test indi
I ran into an issue regarding sage doctests. Once I don't test individual
files, but make a package things go south. From what I understand testing
packages requires to add import statements to the doctests, but I cannot
make it work.
I have a folder example with two files: An empty __init__.py
BTW
El martes, 20 de agosto de 2019, 5:44:33 (UTC+2), rjf escribió:
>
> It may be a mistake to combine "help for students learning symbolic
> integration"
> and "symbolic integration" simply because the methods taught to students
> are probably different from the integration algorithms used by co
>
>
> The link below to docs did not work for me until I added an "l' to make
> it html.
>
You are right, sorry for the broken link.
--
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
