On Saturday, October 19, 2019 at 1:20:15 PM UTC-7, David Roe wrote:
>
> I think the idea is that if a user's typing interactively then they don't
> need a deprecation warning (since the behavior currently works). It's more
> important to show a user a warning if they have the deprecated behavior
Le 20/10/2019 à 11:17, Vincent Delecroix a écrit :
Le 19/10/2019 à 13:19, David Roe a écrit :
I think the idea is that if a user's typing interactively then they don't
need a deprecation warning (since the behavior currently works). It's
more
important to show a user a warning if they have
Le 19/10/2019 à 13:19, David Roe a écrit :
I think the idea is that if a user's typing interactively then they don't
need a deprecation warning (since the behavior currently works). It's more
important to show a user a warning if they have the deprecated behavior in
a function they've written.
See
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/28500
Le 20/10/2019 à 08:36, David Roe a écrit :
I don't mind changing the behavior, I was just trying to explain why it's
currently as is. If we do make a change, we'll probably have to detect an
interactive session as a special case so that we can keep th
I don't mind changing the behavior, I was just trying to explain why it's
currently as is. If we do make a change, we'll probably have to detect an
interactive session as a special case so that we can keep the current
behavior when called from a function.
David
On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 4:45 AM Sim
On Sun, 20 Oct 2019 at 11:38, Simon Brandhorst wrote:
> Dear Ignat Soroko,
>
> the quadratic forms code was written with quadratic forms over QQ and over
> ZZ in mind. So I would be very sceptic about any functionality over number
> fields.
> For instance the signature vector you mention does not
Dear Ignat Soroko,
the quadratic forms code was written with quadratic forms over QQ and over
ZZ in mind. So I would be very sceptic about any functionality over number
fields.
For instance the signature vector you mention does not make sense of the
F. =CyclotomicField(8). Instead of a single
Hi David,
On 2019-10-19, David Roe wrote:
> I think the idea is that if a user's typing interactively then they don't
> need a deprecation warning (since the behavior currently works). It's more
> important to show a user a warning if they have the deprecated behavior in
> a function they've wri
