>
>
> > I've updated #10133 with this apparent consensus. Note that in the
> > partial duplicate #10972 Burcin seemed to think that they should
> > return symbolic expressions, but Simon's argument seems reasonable to
> > me as well.
>
> ???
>
> The quote on that ticket is from you:
>
>
Rea
On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 05:05:24 -0700 (PDT)
kcrisman wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 31, 2012 6:01:07 AM UTC-4, Volker Braun wrote:
> >
> > On Tuesday, October 30, 2012 11:08:15 PM UTC, Fredrik Johansson
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Returning a Sage Integer would be consistent with this:
> >
> >
> > I also t
On Wednesday, October 31, 2012 6:01:07 AM UTC-4, Volker Braun wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, October 30, 2012 11:08:15 PM UTC, Fredrik Johansson wrote:
>
>> Returning a Sage Integer would be consistent with this:
>
>
> I also think that returning a Sage integer is the appropriate thing to do.
>
>
I'v
Fair enough. I don't really have an objection to an Integer output. And
I'll certainly defer to people who actually work on that part of Sage. :-)
David
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 4:01 AM, Volker Braun wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 30, 2012 11:08:15 PM UTC, Fredrik Johansson wrote:
>
>> Returnin
On Tuesday, October 30, 2012 11:08:15 PM UTC, Fredrik Johansson wrote:
> Returning a Sage Integer would be consistent with this:
I also think that returning a Sage integer is the appropriate thing to do.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-dev
Le 30/10/2012 22:58, David Roe a écrit :
I think this is a bug: the type of the result should be consistent.
I think that if you expect a type foo but get a type bar which can be
auto-coerced to type foo, then it's fine, even if not constant.
Snark on #sagemath
--
You received this message
On Tuesday, October 30, 2012 6:31:17 PM UTC-4, Benjamin Jones wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 2:58 PM, David Roe >
> wrote:
> > I think this is a bug: the type of the result should be consistent.
> > David
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 3:54 PM, mmarco >
> wrote:
> >>
> >> There
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 10:54 PM, mmarco wrote:
> Is there some reason for this or is it a bug? Shouldn't the answer be,
> at least, a sage Integer and not a python int?
Returning a Sage Integer would be consistent with this:
sage: type(sqrt(1))
sage: type(sqrt(2))
Fredrik
--
You received t
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 2:58 PM, David Roe wrote:
> I think this is a bug: the type of the result should be consistent.
> David
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 3:54 PM, mmarco wrote:
>>
>> There is an inconsistency in the behaviour of the cosine function
>> sage: type(cos(1))
>>
>> sage: type(cos(
I think this is a bug: the type of the result should be consistent.
David
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 3:54 PM, mmarco wrote:
> There is an inconsistency in the behaviour of the cosine function
> sage: type(cos(1))
>
> sage: type(cos(pi))
>
> sage: type(cos(0))
>
>
> It also happens with the sine:
There is an inconsistency in the behaviour of the cosine function
sage: type(cos(1))
sage: type(cos(pi))
sage: type(cos(0))
It also happens with the sine:
sage: type(sin(0))
sage: type(sin(pi))
and the exponential:
sage: type(exp(0))
sage: type(exp(1))
the logarithm:
sage: type(log(1))
11 matches
Mail list logo
