Hi Kwankyu,
nothing wrong with looking at alternatives, of course, but personally
I do like the current logo (both absolutely speaking and in comparison
to the designs suggested here thus far).
Best,
Lorenz
On Sun, 20 Oct 2024 02:21:32 -0700 (PDT), Kwankyu Lee
wrote:
> Hi
>
> As some of you
This also seems like a good time to reiterate an old comment of mine:
https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/Dq83PiiCAsU/m/RKSpD9_rDQAJ
...pasted below for your convenience.
On Tue, 21 Dec 2021 04:04:31 +0100, Lorenz Panny wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Dec 2021 14:41:27 +0100, Michael Orlit
Sage Days 123 in Leuven ended yesterday and quite a few pull requests
have come out of it already, most of them from new contributors. 🎉
I would like to encourage potential reviewers to have a look at them
sooner rather than later in order to hopefully keep some of the fresh
momentum alive. (Plea
Back in the days of trac, we sometimes had meta tickets that anyone
could edit, for things such as wishlists or keeping track of larger
projects. Some of these meta tickets were turned into GitHub issues,
but now they are no longer editable by anyone except the original
author (or so it seems). I
How about .linearize()?
(I think this method should also optionally take a list
of monomials as an argument, since there are situations
in which users would like to force their own ordering.
Returning the same monomial vector again would then of
course be redundant, so in that case the method co
I usually just run "make build" instead of "make" to skip building the
documentation (with unmodified ./configure arguments). Does that satisfy
your needs?
Best,
Lorenz
On Thu, 16 Mar 2023 11:00:08 +0100, Vincent Delecroix
<20100.delecr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I would like to co
Sorry if this is answered somewhere in the new documentation, I couldn't
find it: What is the intended procedure for migrated issues which were in
"needs review" state and already had a branch? Am I to push the branch to
my own fork and create a fresh pull request for each such issue?
--
You re
Python defines divmod() and the associated .__divmod__() magic method
for what Sage calls .quo_rem().
Is there any reason why Sage shouldn't or cannot support divmod()?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this gr
See here: https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/33621
Best,
Lorenz
--
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 it, send an email
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view t
On Mon, 20 Dec 2021 14:41:27 +0100, Michael Orlitzky
wrote:
> We already have 214 standard packages. That's 214 pieces of software
> copy & pasted into the sage releases... and 214 SPKGs that the sage
> developers need to keep updating, and 214 distro packages that every
> distro maintainer nee
This looks like a buffering issue: The test was apparently written
under the expectation that the Python print() would get flushed to
stdout before the GMP error gets printed in the library call, but
this is untrue if Python caches the output until after calling GMP.
Hence we're seeing the output
I've seen handrolled __hash__ methods in quite a few places: They
usually take individual hashes of the data defining the object and
combine them in some arbitrary-looking way.
Two examples I came across recently:
https://github.com/sagemath/sage/blob/9.4/src/sage/schemes/elliptic_curves/ell_
Trying to build 9.5beta2 using (system) gsl version 2.7 fails
while compiling src/sage/ext/interpreters/wrapper_cdf.pyx, as
the .dat member of the gsl_complex structure no longer exists
unless in legacy mode:
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/gsl.git/tree/complex/gsl_complex.h?id=89168fb10c0
Have we considered the idea to simply call self.set_immutable() whenever
__hash__ is invoked? I think that would solve Nils' original problem and
it would mean things run smoothly for users who don't know about mutable
and immutable objects. In that case, the exception for trying to modify
immuta
Hi all,
the current behaviour of is_prime() on rationals is to return False.
I suggest to instead call Integer.is_prime whenever the rational is
in fact integral. Please see the ticket for details:
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/32321
Best,
Lorenz
--
You received this message because you
15 matches
Mail list logo
