A corollary to this is that relevant documentation should not exist in
the TESTS block. And those edge cases should be documented. If the
user wants to know more, foo?? will give them the Only True
Documentation, which happens to include the TESTS block.
[x] 'foo?' should NOT display TESTS bloc
Hold on, why do you want to rule out zero? It seems like a dumb thing
to do a search at depth zero, but raising an error rather than
returning a trivial result is infuriating to a user.
On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 11:06 AM, John H Palmieri
wrote:
>
>
> On Saturday, September 26, 2015 at 10:55:57 AM
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:14 PM, Jori Mäntysalo wrote:
>
> Maybe. But it would be quite nasty to interpret it that way, if we know that
> propably it is not what was meant.
You say nasty, I say that's the legal ramification of distributing his
code under GPLv3+. We agree on this point, which is
der the GPL). Best to
make sure he knows what he's getting into.
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 12:15 PM, William Stein wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Tom Boothby wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Jori Mäntysalo
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Duh. Then what he m
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Jori Mäntysalo wrote:
> Duh. Then what he means when saying that we can ignore it for incorporation
> into Sage?
Only he can clarify that. If he releases the source under a
GPL-compatible license, then we have evidence that he means what he
says. His verbal p
I spoke with Brendan McKay personally less than a month ago. He is
fully aware about the restrictions, and utterly unmoved by the
difficulty his license creates.
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 4:30 AM, Jori Mäntysalo wrote:
> More about licenses, see http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/14110 . This is a
>
If a @cached_method accepts mutable objects, that's a bug.
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 12:48 AM, Volker Braun wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 23, 2015 at 3:40:24 AM UTC+2, William wrote:
>>
>> What about something explicit, e.g.,
>>A.add_inplace(B)
>> which would mutate A and be very clear and explicit
Wow, is that some top-shelf navel lint. Perhaps we should call the
language WolframWolframWolfram, or WWW for short. Then, Stephen and
Al Gore can fight over who invented what.
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 1:28 PM, Dr. David Kirkby (Kirkby Microwave
Ltd) wrote:
>
> On 11 Jun 2015 20:10, "William Ste
House of Graphs has a similar goal; perhaps it would be better to
implement an interface to HoG like we have for OEIS, rather than
reinvent the wheel.
http://hog.grinvin.org/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from thi
d'oh, I misread that, and mentally converted cartesian_product to its
camelcase variant.
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 11:32 AM, William Stein wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 11:29 AM, Tom Boothby wrote:
>> That's never worked. You probably want
>>
>> sage: ca
That's never worked. You probably want
sage: cartesian_product([1,2,3], [1,2,3])
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 10:59 AM, William Stein wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm unhappy that this doesn't work:
>
> sage: cartesian_product([[1,2,3], [1,2,3]])
> BOOM!
>
> It seems clear from the docstring that thi
The irony of this is staggering, if not surprising. +1
--
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 post to this gr
Indeed, on a second reading, my post was an overreaction. I apologize
for that. I don't see where I "broke it clearly and cleanly at [your]
expense." If you'd like to tell me publicly or privately where I've
misstepped, I'm not going to put up a fight.
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 8:44 AM, Nathann C
Ya know... Nathann. Buddy. Calling out people who may have had
complaints that could trigger a discussion about a code of conduct is
a bully move. Please avoid doing this in the future. If you want to
vent your spleen, you're welcome to do it on sage-flame.
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 6:37 PM, Nat
In my mind, "moving a conversation to sage-flame" is a constructive,
if imperfect way to handle conversations that are going off the deep
end. It's a way that we can flag a conversation as being
inappropriate for the tone of sage-devel without pointing fingers. If
somebody doesn't want to continu
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 10:36 AM, William Stein wrote:
> Given the potentially political nature of such a choice, one
> possibility is to do something apolitical, and select based on
> ownership. In particular, based on lines of code contributed to Sage,
> which is an (imperfect!) but non-politic
had me right until the point I saw "as of today (1/4)."...
On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 4:56 PM, François Bissey
wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Mar 2014 19:55:47 Stephen Kauffman wrote:
>> On 3/31/2014 7:53 PM, François Bissey wrote:
>> > On Mon, 31 Mar 2014 19:50:30 Stephen Kauffman wrote:
>> >> On 3/31/2014 7:
IIRC, the bottleneck to computing the spectra of large graphs is in
the construction of the adjacency matrix. I don't know why.
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Paul Mercat wrote:
> Le mercredi 26 mars 2014 22:56:46 UTC+1, Dima Pasechnik a écrit :
>>
>> On 2014-03-26, Paul Mercat wrote:
>> >
>>
lol... IIRC, William has gotten a few libraries to change their
licenses. It is a genuine request, and there is no blackmail here.
On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 11:23 AM, Volker Braun wrote:
> As far as Sage is concerned, anything that is GPLv3 compatible is fine (this
> includes LGPL).
>
> I don't un
By default, I agree with you -- foo.is_blah() should be boolean.
However, I agree with Nathann. When there are extra parameters, we
should be able to return other stuff.
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 6:51 AM, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> I am reviewing http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/15864
> and it occurs
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 8:31 AM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
>
> I like the fact the picture on his desktop is of him.
>
> Dave
Isn't yours?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails fr
On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Martin Albrecht
wrote:
>> I remember that dinner... where I had license discussions with an
>> intoxicated Germans...
>
> Makes sense: as far as I know the Sage rule is you're *only* allowed to
> discuss licenses if you are intoxicated.
I'm going to have to disag
The boundary code does get used... though it's fairly specialized --
it's for the UW Math REU.
On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 2:58 AM, Nathann Cohen wrote:
> Hell everybody !!
>
> While working on #15278, Simon rediscovered the "boundary" graph parameter.
> Turns out that there is a line is G
Well too darned bad, 'cause I'm gonna share the magic formula I just
found anyway:
[((i&-i)-1).popcount() for i in srange(1,2^n)]
from http://aggregate.org/MAGIC/
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 6:42 AM, Nathann Cohen wrote:
> Yo !!
>
>> Yes indeed -- with a formula like that, there's little re
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 9:50 PM, Nils Bruin wrote:
> It will be very hard to beat the simple closed formula
>
> ( (i>>1) ^^ i for i in xrange(2^n) )
>
Yes indeed -- with a formula like that, there's little reason not to
implement it ad-hoc every time. Unless a user wants it, and doesn't
know thi
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 11:03 AM, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
> You can iterate over a vector using "for x in ..." rather than indexing
> though.
>
Nice. I do love cython. Every time I use it for something new, I
learn that features "just work" that I never thought to try. Thanks
for your help!
-
or[int]] M):
return M
def identity(tuple t):
return tupletuple(t)
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 10:28 AM, Tom Boothby wrote:
> lol, really? Can I then toss that back to python?
>
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Robert Bradshaw
> wrote:
>> How about
>>
>>
lol, really? Can I then toss that back to python?
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
> How about
>
> cdef tupletuple(vector[vector[int]] M):
> return M
>
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 8:48 AM, Tom Boothby wrote:
>> I'm working on overh
I'm working on overhauling a class (see [1]) that wraps some c++, and
I've got just about everything working how I want... but I have a
nagging doubt about performance.
Is the following fast? Can it be made fast without a bunch of ugly
python c-api stuff?
cdef tupletuple(vector[vector[int]] M):
raise RuntimeError,"Could not obtain comic data from %s . Maybe you
should enable time travel!"%url
You gave up on this too early, IMO. I'd "from __future__ import *"
and then try the url again.
For the more pragmatic, you can fairly accurately predict when that
url will come live, and just slee
1. I agree that "discrete" was a poor name choice
2. Would we want to add a package that implements a single (very
elementary) class? (no)
3. I, for one, would like to keep Sage's documentation apolitical --
I'd rather to see some mathematical examples than those provided.
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at
If the dictionary is a bijection, I use:
{v:k for k,v in d.iteritems()}
Otherwise, I use defaultdict:
d_inv=defaultdict(list)
map(lambda(k,v):d_inv[v].append(k), d.items())
For iso/automorphisms of graphs, I often wish that dictionaries were
both callable and invertible. In general, yes, I think
I will argue against False. We've had the convention that
Graph().is_connected() is True for the last n years. This was an
arbitrary (if heedless) choice at the boundary of several definitions.
It doesn't seem to be an undue source of bugs, so the only impact of
changing this arbitrary choice to
I have a script I use to convert a boolean function into an equivalent
CNF boolean function so I can use a SAT solver on arbitrary boolean
functions. I hoped to use SymbolicLogic, but it was so lacking, I
rolled my own. Off with its head!
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 3:07 PM, William Stein wrote:
>
On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Nils Bruin wrote:
> Since it is entirely unclear from that tutorial what the factor 20 (or
> the factor 10) refers to, I would not have understood that code to
> mean "even the fastest path of a cpdef function is slower than a
> cdef". There is a lot of documentati
This shouldn't really come as a surprise. From the Cython documentation,
"This is about 20 times slower, but still about 10 times faster than
the original Python-only integration code. This shows how large the
speed-ups can easily be when whole loops are moved from Python code
into a Cython modul
No worries. I just proved that Sage does not infringe Estatis Inc.'s
intellectual property. We're cool.
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 5:23 PM, kcrisman wrote:
>
> How did we ever get along trying to prove theorems with more than one axiom?
>
> http://www.eleves.ens.fr/home/amarilli/falso/
>
> Sage r
Jernej,
While somebody is at this, Maple has graphs, too.
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Jernej Azarija wrote:
> Hello!
>
> This question is related to the following page
> http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/wiki/GraphTheoryRoadmap
>
> As one can see the last time it was modified was 3 years
prod() does just what you want.
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 5:53 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> I've been carrying this around in my init.sage. Is there really nothing
> like it in the library? If not, any reason not to add it?
>
> ##
>
> from functools import reduce
>
> def product(factors):
> """
Hey Rob,
I ran into something similar a little while back in sage-5.0
sage: G = Graph([(0,1,0),(0,1,0)])
sage: G.num_edges()
4
but IIRC, it was fixed in 5.3.
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 8:02 PM, Rob Beezer wrote:
> Anybody recognise this bug? I don't see anything in Trac.
>
> T=[(0, 2, '0'), (3,
ou want to claim any extra credit or something, here is
> the track ticket:
>
> http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/13721
>
> On Tuesday, 30 October 2012 18:19:26 UTC+1, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>>
>> On 2012-10-30, Tom Boothby wrote:
>> > Oops, didn't see y
Thank you, Jernej, for bringing up this issue. Turns out I've been
lazy, and hadn't carefully thought about degenerate cases. The line
graph is a bad test because the claw and triangle have the same line
graph... the disconnected pair (claw + C_3) has a vertex-transitive
line graph! The followin
Oops, didn't see your reply before I posted. Not counting the empty
graph is very very strange. At the very least OEIS needs to be
updated to have a proper definition to warn people that the empty
graph is excluded.
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 4:23 AM, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> On 2012-10-30, Jerne
c-transitivity (symmetric graphs) and there is no
> useful way to convert the problem to vertex transitivity. So the question on
> why the code is not correct remains!
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Jernej Azarija
>> wrote:
>> > This works yes
29, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Jernej Azarija wrote:
> This works yes. However it still leaves open what is going on with
> disconnected graphs and what is the problem with the proposed
> is_edge_transitive method!
>
> Do you (or anyone) happens to see a bug or a bizarre mistake in the
> implem
Sorry, I meant n=8.
sage: print [ec(n) for n in range(9)]
[1, 1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 5, 8]
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 11:41 AM, Tom Boothby wrote:
> Wanna run that on connected graphs? I get the correct sequence out to n=9 for
>
> def ec(n)
> c = 0
> for g in graphs(n
Wanna run that on connected graphs? I get the correct sequence out to n=9 for
def ec(n)
c = 0
for g in graphs(n):
if g.is_connected() and g.line_graph().is_vertex_transitive():
c+= 1
return c
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Jernej Azarija wrote:
> Hello!
>
>
I use G.line_graph().is_vertex_transitive()
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 7:12 AM, Jernej Azarija wrote:
> Hello!
>
> I am slowly implementing a patch that will provide some features for
> symmetry testing of graphs.
>
> However I am already puzzled by the following attempt at testing for
> edge-transi
Philipp,
The ticket already has some comments from Martin -- it needs doctests, etc.
When I looked at the code, I found the documentation about the various
substitution strategies. The docstrings should list the strategies
and give an explanation for how they work.
Regards,
Tom
On Thu, Oct
So, the deadline came and went -- what happened?
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Fernando Perez wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Robert Bradshaw
> wrote:
>> It's also much
>> better to make it official now, when ownership is not being
>> questioned, than at some later date when it is n
Found a nice feature of Python's approach.
License for this Policy
Interested parties may adapt this policy document freely under the
Creative Commons CC0 license:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 11:50 PM, Tom Boothby wrote:
> Thanks, Martin, I hadn't thought about that -- Debian/Ic
Thanks, Martin, I hadn't thought about that -- Debian/IceWeasel is an
excellent example of things that can go wrong. Trademarks are useless
if impinged and not challenged. If people start making SageThis and
SageThat, we may lose control.
Per the norm, when sticky legal questions arise, I think
I think this makes a lot of sense from a legal perspective (IANAL).
My only concern is: how legally binding is asking this question on
sage-devel with a 5-day turnaround?
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 4:08 PM, William Stein wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Jason Grout
> wrote:
>> On 5/31/12
anybody wants to use this, I'm happy to place it in the public domain.
SATPROG = '/home/boothby/minisat'
class SAT:
def __init__(self,clauses):
self.vars = {}
self.clauses = []
for c in clauses:
self(*c)
def __getitem__(self,k):
if
Oh man, that's a shame. I really thought we were gonna get a real
productivity boost out of spooning. And, of course, knifing.
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 6:38 AM, Jason Grout wrote:
> Just so we are clear, some (but not all) of the posts yesterday were jokes
> posted as part of the "April Fool's Da
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 8:30 AM, David Kirkby wrote:
> On 13 March 2012 13:42, Tom Boothby wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 6:29 AM, David Kirkby
>> wrote:
>
>>>> Two years ago, few would believe that a computer could win Jeopardy,
>>>> much less
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 6:29 AM, David Kirkby wrote:
> On 12 March 2012 01:57, Tom Boothby wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Dr. David Kirkby
>
>>> I take exception to what he said:
>>>
>>> "It'll probably be related to my goal
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Dr. David Kirkby
wrote:
> On 03/11/12 05:00 PM, Volker Braun wrote:
>>
>> On Saturday, March 10, 2012 3:59:24 PM UTC-5, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> HARD
>>> C++, Mathematica
>>>
>> The Mathematica language is just difficult because its ugly and uses weird
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 5:15 PM, David Roe wrote:
>>> Another issue: do we allow [1..10; 10..20]?
>>
>> We probably shouldn't go to extra effort to support it.
>>
>>> I can't seem to construct
>>> matrices with matrix entries (this is not absurd) -- but should the
>>> preparser grok it? [[1..10; 1
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 3:21 PM, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Tom Boothby wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Robert Bradshaw
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Michael Orlitzky
>>> wrote:
>>&g
t the bar for inclusion
>> should be pretty high.
>
> I totally agree with you here, the bar for adding to the preparser
> should be high. I think it's a good candidate here because (1) It's
> easy to understand what it means (2) it's illegal Python syntax, and
>
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Jason Grout
wrote:
> Another option would be:
>
> [QQ: 1,2,3; 4,5,6]
QQ:1 is a slice...
> or, as Robert suggests:
>
> [1,2,3; 4,5,6, base_ring=QQ] -- but then it looks like base_ring=QQ is
> another element.
assignments aren't literals... but I don't like this
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
> To get a quick sense of what people think about this, I've decided to
> rephrase this as a survey. To be clear, though this coincides with
> Matlab syntax, the intent is not to try to make Sage a Matlab clone,
> rather it is to add a miss
Jason,
I've been working with nonisomorphic colorings recently. I use the following:
def canonical_coloring_label(G,c):
"""
Given a coloring dictionary,
{color1 : [u1, u2, ...], color2 : [v1, v2, ... ], ... }
return a string which uniquely identifies the isomorph
By this logic, no bugs should be fixed, because they aren't covered in
the warranty... this isn't a healthy attitude.
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> This is an old ticket to catch misspellings of 'sage:' in doctests:
>
> http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/6439
>
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 6:52 AM, Simon King wrote:
> Hi Dima,
>
> On 30 Nov., 15:29, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>> I might get blamed for making discouraging remarks, but let me play the
>> devil's advocate:
>>
>> I wonder if these kinds of speed-ups are to be beaten, soon, by
>> sufficiently fast har
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 9:25 PM, rjf wrote:
>
> William seems to prefer to tout the Sage-Cython link.
That's because we use Cython, and it's easy to use in Sage, and
provides a fully-functional language-native interface between Cython
and Sage. Not a single part of that is true about the Maxima
I'll doctest polynomial_compiled this week, since it's 100% my fault.
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 12:41 PM, William Stein wrote:
> Hi Sage Developers,
> After deleting the server directory we need to add doctests to
> about588 more functions to get coverage to 90%, which is a major goal
> forsage-5.0
Is it possible to move/merge the OpenID accounts over to sagenb.org?
> On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 8:03 AM, Jason Grout
> wrote:
>> Is anyone using flask.sagenb.org? It is now an obsolete experiment, since
>> the new flask notebook is running on sagenb.org and the cutting-edge flask
>> notebook is r
I'm using it. I'll save relevant worksheets elsewhere.
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 8:03 AM, Jason Grout wrote:
> Is anyone using flask.sagenb.org? It is now an obsolete experiment, since
> the new flask notebook is running on sagenb.org and the cutting-edge flask
> notebook is running on test.sagenb
The @parallel instance kills its still-running children once it drops
out of scope. This happens immediately after the return statement is
executed. Since I merely call .next() on the generator, the first one
to finish gets picked out in milliseconds, and the remainders are axed
almost immediatel
On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 9:28 PM, leif wrote:
> On 4 Nov., 02:15, Tom Boothby wrote:
>> This is fairly easy to do with @parallel:
>>
>> def fast(x):
>> return x
>>
>> def slow(x):
>> sleep(x)
>> return x
>>
>> def slower(x
This is fairly easy to do with @parallel:
def fast(x):
return x
def slow(x):
sleep(x)
return x
def slower(x):
sleep(x*x)
return x
algorithms = [slower, slow, fast]
@parallel(len(algorithms))
def fastest(i,x):
global algorithms
return algorithms[i](x)
def compute(x
I capitulate on the hidden file idea, in favor of putting 'em in
~/.sage/ though one might note that we're exchanging one hidden file
for another ;)
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 6:47 PM, John H Palmieri wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 20, 2011 5:46:03 PM UTC-7, Tom wrote:
>>
>> +1 to .file.py, since it
+1 to .file.py, since it'll hide the file from directory listings.
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Felix Salfelder wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 12:55:32PM -0700, John H Palmieri wrote:
>> Should "sage-preparse" name the preparsed file something safer, in order to
>> prevent name clashes like
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 10:18 PM, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> I guess this all boils down to the point made by William - that _pow_ needs
> to be integrated into the coersion framework (currently it is not).
+1. Also, I should point out that I didn't make the decision myself
back then; I was sitting
I uniformized the behavior of 0^0 a long time ago (though I make no
claim about what has happened between then and now -- just that it was
uniform for a few precious minutes). The decision back then (which I
still stand behind) is that while it is mathematically unjustifiable,
it's Python's conven
Do you want all users to be able to change the variable? You could
easily make variable support local, but not superglobal writes by
putting its definition in all.py
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 11:45 AM, VictorMiller wrote:
> I'd like to have a python "very global" variable -- i.e. one which
> will
Thanks, Nils. I've found another "great" example:
class 0:
def 0(0):
return 0
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 7:53 PM, Nils Bruin wrote:
> This is now http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/11542
> There are some ideas there on how to fix this.
>
> --
> To post to this group, send an e
This is exceptionally strange:
sage: def x(a,1):
sage: return a+1
sage: print x(1,5)
6
In my opinion, that's a bug, as is
sage: def y(a,b=1):
sage:return a+b
sage: 1=5
sage: y(1)
6
Thoughts?
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from thi
Feel free to unimport BinaryTree from everywhere, and only import it
in compiled_polynomial.
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 7:43 AM, Florent Hivert
wrote:
> Hi Simon,
>
>> > On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 01:03:07PM +0200, Florent hivert wrote:
>> > > So I'd like to have a vote for either one of those
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 5:03 PM, William Stein wrote:
> This is similar to nagbot, which I wrote for the same purpose in a few
> hours at a Sage days in Leiden:
>
> http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/wstein/nagbot/
>
> People found it annoying. But it's better than nothing.
>
> We need somet
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 4:25 PM, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
> I don't think it would be more offensive, but I think it would be less
> effective. (I certainly ignore machine-generated nag emails better
> than personal ones.
I've sent out these emails two or three times total in the last 4
years, and
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 3:49 PM, John H Palmieri wrote:
> My first objection is that it assigns too many tickets to me for review :)
:) As Francois pointed out, it assigns you tickets because you're one
of a few "rockstar" developers who indiscriminately fix / review
tickets no matter what compo
Novoseltsev ['10540']
Jonathan Gutow ['7469']
Stefan Reiterer ['8783', '9494']
John Cremona ['10240']
John Palmieri ['7797', '8290', '10190', '10226', '10667', '11009', '11026',
I've been reviewing #10804, which was merged in sage-4.7.1.alpha0. I
though this was a done deal... but apparently not. In the meantime,
#10549 got a positive review. It conflicted with #10804. Jeroen,
acting RM (for which I'm immensely grateful), backed out #10804 and
marked both patches needs
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 10:37 PM, Mike Hansen wrote:
> On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 6:52 PM, Rob Beezer wrote:
>> OK, thanks for the explanation, Tom. p.exponents() was the missing
>> piece I did not have.
>
> It would probably make sense to have p.monomials() method to be
> consistent with the multi
Yeah, I thought this was a bug too at one point. I discussed it with
Craig Citro, and we were all ready to open a ticket when William
overheard us and pointed out that it was made to be consistent with
symbolics.
The convention makes the following nice:
for c,e in zip(p.coefficients(), p.exponen
The spammer's account is named "Lila Marion", can somebody with access
delete it?
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 6:26 PM, Tom Boothby wrote:
> Thanks Ryan, fixed.
>
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 6:18 PM, Ryan Grout wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Am I the only one seeing
Thanks Ryan, fixed.
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 6:18 PM, Ryan Grout wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am I the only one seeing a funny starting page on wiki.sagemath.org?
>
> I see:
>
> http://www.eradicatebedbugs.com - Bed Bug Dog NYC
>
> Here is a
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Jason Grout
wrote:
> Instead of keeping track of dependencies back to 4.6.2, for example, can we
> just list a dependency as "4.7.alpha4" and have the build-bot understand
> that as a meta-dependency and apply everything up to 4.7.alpha4?
What if the alpha has te
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 1:10 PM, Stefan van Zwam
wrote:
> 3) ???
Option 3: rejoice, the work has been done for you!
http://www.sagemath.org/doc/reference/sage/misc/bitset.html
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email t
2011/3/9 Paulo César Pereira de Andrade
:
> But I did not account:
> Releases
> - Your releases are only in an encapsulation format that you invented.
> [ +100 points of FAIL ]
> (( spkgs ))
To be fair, .spkg == tar.bz2, so these hundred points are unfair.
2011/3/9 William Stein :
> I'm glad
I wonder... can we make money off of said reality TV show?
2011/3/9 Paulo César Pereira de Andrade
:
> This may be of interest
>
> https://www.theopensourceway.org/wiki/How_to_tell_if_a_FLOSS_project_is_doomed_to_FAIL
>
> and should explain why sage is not included and/or built from
> sources in
That's not the trend I'd highlight in the code. Looks to me like
we're overdue for a surge in doctest coverage. Can we get up to 95%
in the next 3 releases?
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Sébastien Labbé wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I just did a graph of the Evolution of the Overall Doctest Coverage of
>
Yes, and I think that Permutations should support exponentiation, too:
sage: P = Permutation([1,2,3,4,5])
sage: P^2
Traceback (most recent call last):
...
TypeError: unsupported operand type(s) for ** or pow():
'Permutation_class' and 'int'
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 10:47 AM, Rob Beezer wrote:
> An
FWIW, I get that error message on the following:
sage: cython("""
cdef int foo(int z) except -1:
return z
def bar(z):
return foo(z)
""")
sage: bar(-1)
---
SystemError Traceback (most rece
> I'm also curious about honest *opinions* about how people in the Sage
> community would feel about a company making potentially gobs of money
> selling support contracts? What balance between profit and giving
> back to the community would be appropriate? What services might be
> offensive, an
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 11:05 PM, William Stein wrote:
>
> NOTE: Looking at results, GAP has way more false positives than Sage,
> since "gap" is a common word that can occur in the context of
> programming, e.g. "Bridging the Gap: Programming Sensor Networks with
> Applications" is on the first p
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 7:33 AM, David Kirkby wrote:
> As a matter of interst, how many people do you expect make use of code
> to solve Rubiks cube? Do you really think that should have been in the
> main Sage library, or would it have been more appropiate to have such
> functionality as optional
1 - 100 of 541 matches
Mail list logo
