When should one use "optional" versus "default" in docstrings? I've
noticed a lot of variation in the files in /src/sage/. Often, "optional"
is used if the argument in question defaults to "None", but I also see
"(default: None)" or "(default: ``None``)". On the other hand, I also see
exampl
I have two bright former students who would probably be willing to help.
One is in currently in the CS program at UW and the other will start the
PhD program in math at Berkeley next fall. Both know sandpile theory well
(the former is a co-author), and both have experience using the Sage,
esp
One constructive thing I can do, at least, is revise the code to the point
that patchbot is happy. Up to this point, I have only known of the test
"sage -t". All tests passed for my revised code. The problems patchbot
is flagging all seem to be issues with building documentation: indentatio
Yes, I think it will be much more efficient to address these changes all at
once. I would really prefer that, if possible.
I had seen the "reasons-to-invalidate-tickets" statement but was hoping
this was a guideline, subject to context, and not a law.
Thanks.
On Thursday, June 11, 2015 at 8:3
I have just posted the following revisions to sage/sandpiles at
http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/18618 (needs_review):
Summary of sandpile.py changes from version 2.3 to 2.4
June 11, 2015
1. Eliminated dependence on 4ti2, substituting the use of Polyhedron
methods. Thus, no optional packages ar
In case you didn't catch it, Nathann Cohen came up with a solution:
Find the file called 'dependencies' in
SAGE_ROOT/build/pkgs/conway_polynomials/ and replace the line
| $(SAGERUNTIME)
with
$(INST)/$(PEXPECT) | $(SAGERUNTIME)
Then run:
> export SAGE_KEEP_BUILT_SPKGS='yes'
> make
Success!
Thanks for the help.
On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 8:25:59 AM UTC-7, Nathann Cohen wrote:
>
> Yo !
>
> > which will take several hours, or is some variant of the following
> better:
>
> The second should work. No reason to destroy what you already built I'd
> say.
>
> Nathann
>
Sure, I can try that. Should I enter:
> make distclean && make
which will take several hours, or is some variant of the following better:
> export SAGE_KEEP_BUILT_SPKGS='yes'
> make
Thanks.
On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 8:17:07 AM UTC-7, Nathann Cohen wrote:
>
> David: there is in SAGE_
This is the same problem I just posted: see the message with subject header
"trouble compiling sage in git-trac".
On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 7:36:09 AM UTC-7, Dinakar Muthiah wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Yesterday, I tried to build the development branch of Sage on my machine
> and failed. Apparent
the last error
> is probably not.
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 4:09:11 PM UTC+2, David Perkinson wrote:
>>
>> I've already tried that. I get the same error message.
>>
>> On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 6:55:00 AM UTC-7, Volker Braun wrote:
I've already tried that. I get the same error message.
On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 6:55:00 AM UTC-7, Volker Braun wrote:
>
> Try to rebuild everything from scratch (make distclean && make). Will take
> a while...
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 3:13:
I am still trying to post revisions to sandpile.py. The next issue is
compiling sage with the git-trac directory. The file pexpect.py seems to
be missing. Here is the error message:
Found local metadata for conway_polynomials-0.4.p0
Using cached file
/home/davidp/sage-devel/git-trac-command/
Once I have successfully navigated this process, I would happily provide
feedback on the documentation. (Thanks for your tolerance with my
questions!)
On Friday, June 5, 2015 at 7:15:39 PM UTC+1, kcrisman wrote:
>
> I have just made a *lot* of revisions to the files in the sage/sandpiles/
>>
I have just made a *lot* of revisions to the files in the sage/sandpiles/
directory and would like to post then to the trac system to be reviewed and
included in a future version of sage. I have followed the instructions
on the "collaborative development with git-trac" page
(http://doc.sagem
ieri wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, May 26, 2015 at 4:31:54 PM UTC-7, David Perkinson wrote:
>>
>> EXAMPLES::
>>
>> sage: S = sandpiles.Complete(4)
>> sage: D = SandpileDivisor(S, {0: 0, 1: 0, 2: 8, 3: 0})
>> sage: E = Sandpil
One more thing: I also replaced each instance of "doctest:858:" with
"doctest:...".
On Tuesday, May 26, 2015 at 4:31:54 PM UTC-7, David Perkinson wrote:
>
> EXAMPLES::
>
> sage: S = sandpiles.Complete(4)
> sage: D = SandpileDivisor(S, {0: 0,
st contains explicit source line
> number". Can you provide an example of a doctest you changed when adding
> the deprecation warnings?
>
> John
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, May 26, 2015 at 4:11:36 PM UTC-7, David Perkinson wrote:
>>
>> Could someone help me with th
Could someone help me with the following error message? I am making a lot
of revisions to sandpile.py, and all doctests had passed up until I decided
to deprecate some functions. After that, I needed to add the deprecation
warnings to some Examples sections. I cleared up all those errors and
On Thursday, May 14, 2015 at 1:29:36 PM UTC-7, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, 14 May 2015 21:16:03 UTC+1, David Perkinson wrote:
>>
>> After putting
>>
>> import sage.matroids.matroid
>>
>
> how about
>
> from sage.matroids.matroid import
I guess that since the bug in the tutte_polynomial method for Graph will be
fixed in sage 6.7, I don't need to use the Matroid version anyway.
On Thursday, May 14, 2015 at 1:16:03 PM UTC-7, David Perkinson wrote:
>
> After putting
>
> import sage.matroids.matroid
>
> in
or the new method I've added to
Sandpile.
On Thursday, May 14, 2015 at 12:22:32 PM UTC-7, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, 14 May 2015 19:32:48 UTC+1, David Perkinson wrote:
>>
>> I am working on sandpile.py and would like to use tutte_polynomial from
&
I am working on sandpile.py and would like to use tutte_polynomial from
sage/matroids/matroid.pyx. Could someone tell me the correct import
statement put in sandpile.py?
Thanks.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe fr
sage: g = Graph()
sage:
g.add_edges([(0,1,1),(0,2,1),(0,3,1),(0,4,1),(0,5,1),(1,2,1),(2,3,1),(3,4,1),(4,5,1)])
sage: g.tutte_polynomial().subs(x=1,y=1)
66
sage: Matroid(g).tutte_polynomial().subs(x=1,y=1)
55
sage: f = Graph()
sage: f.add_edges([(0,1),(0,2),(0,3),(0,4),(0,5),(1,2),(2,3),(3,4),(4,5
23 matches
Mail list logo
