On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 11:01:00PM -0700, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On Oct 13, 2009, at 12:34 PM, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote:
> > Any chances for you to review shortly:
> >
> > http://combinat.sagemath.org/patches/file/tip/categories-fixsagelib-nt.patch
>
> Looks fine to me. Seems to be mostly renami
On Oct 13, 2009, at 12:34 PM, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote:
>
> Hi Robert, Craig,
>
> Any chances for you to review shortly:
>
> http://combinat.sagemath.org/patches/file/tip/categories-fixsagelib-nt.patch
Looks fine to me. Seems to be mostly renaming stuff and plumbing
category definitions a
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 05:45:42PM -0700, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On Oct 13, 2009, at 12:34 PM, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote:
> > Any chances for you to review shortly:
> > http://combinat.sagemath.org/patches/file/tip/categories-fixsagelib-nt.patch
>
> 500 - Internal Server Error
Argl, again!
Anyo
On Oct 13, 2009, at 12:34 PM, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote:
>
> Hi Robert, Craig,
>
> Any chances for you to review shortly:
>
> http://combinat.sagemath.org/patches/file/tip/categories-fixsagelib-nt.patch
500 - Internal Server Error
- Robert
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~
Hi Robert, Craig,
Any chances for you to review shortly:
http://combinat.sagemath.org/patches/file/tip/categories-fixsagelib-nt.patch
Thanks!
Cheers,
Nicolas
--
Nicolas M. Thiéry "Isil"
http://Nicolas.Thiery.name/
--~--~-~--~~~-
On Fri, Oct 09, 2009 at 12:25:54AM -0700, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> > Robert: What's your time line for:
> > - the review of categories-fixsagelib-nt.patch
> > - finalizing #5597 [with patch, needs work] rename coercion action
> > methods
>
> Rebased, has doctests, needs review.
Yep. Will rev
On Sep 16, 2009, at 5:49 AM, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote:
>
> Dear category fans,
>
> Thanks to Florent (and previous work by Anne, Jason, Franco, ...) all
> the sage-combinat related categories have a positive review. There
> remains just the mostly trivial categories listed below which would
On Fri, Oct 09, 2009 at 12:04:18AM +0200, Nicolas Thiéry wrote:
> With Sage 4.1.1, all sage-combinat patches applied, graphviz
> installed, and the experimental dot2tex.spkg (pfff) one can now do:
>
> sage: G = sage.categories.category.category_graph().reverse()
> sage: G.set_latex_op
Hi Tim!
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 02:39:15PM +0200, Nicolas Thiéry wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 04:04:28AM -0400, Tim Daly wrote:
> > Do you have the inheritance graph of the categories?
>
> Almost :-) The category primer currently suggests:
>
> sage: GradedHopfAlgebrasWithBasis(Q
Dear category fans,
Thanks to Florent (and previous work by Anne, Jason, Franco, ...) all
the sage-combinat related categories have a positive review. There
remains just the mostly trivial categories listed below which would be
best reviewed by some non-sage-combinat person (standard cat
Hi Tim!
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 04:04:28AM -0400, Tim Daly wrote:
> Do you have the inheritance graph of the categories?
Almost :-) The category primer currently suggests:
sage: GradedHopfAlgebrasWithBasis(QQ).category_graph().plot()
which gives a reasonable approximation. However
On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 02:48:15AM -0700, javier wrote:
> On Aug 23, 12:56 am, "Nicolas M. Thiery"
> wrote:
> > For the rest, this review is a bit specific: you can skip the
> > technical part of the review (checking that the patch applies
> > smoothly, pass tests, ...); this part will be done at
Nicolas
Do you have the inheritance graph of the categories?
Tim Daly
Nicolas M. Thiery wrote:
> Hi John!
>
> On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 12:37:11PM +0100, John Cremona wrote:
>
>> 2009/8/23 Nicolas M. Thiery :
>>
>>> So you can focus on looking at the code, doc, and tests in the fil
Hi John!
On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 12:37:11PM +0100, John Cremona wrote:
> 2009/8/23 Nicolas M. Thiery :
> > So you can focus on looking at the code, doc, and tests in the files
> > mentioned in:
> >
> > http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/wiki/CategoriesCategoriesReview
> >
> > possi
2009/8/23 Nicolas M. Thiery :
> So you can focus on looking at the code, doc, and tests in the files
> mentioned in:
>
> http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/wiki/CategoriesCategoriesReview
>
> possibly simply by browsing:
>
>
> http://combinat.sagemath.org/hgwebdir.cgi/code/file/tip/
On Aug 23, 12:56 am, "Nicolas M. Thiery"
wrote:
> For the rest, this review is a bit specific: you can skip the
> technical part of the review (checking that the patch applies
> smoothly, pass tests, ...); this part will be done at once for all the
> category code once the mathematical review wil
Dear javier,
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 02:17:34AM -0700, javier wrote:
> I would like to get more involved with Sage developing, and
> "mathematical sanity check" looks like something I can certainly do
> and a nice way to get started, so I will try to jump into this one.
Great, thanks!
>
Dear category fans,
For information: in principle, the new category code is now 100% doctested!
Cheers,
Nicolas
--
Nicolas M. Thiéry "Isil"
http://Nicolas.Thiery.name/
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send an e
Hi Javier,
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 7:17 PM, javier wrote:
>
> I would like to get more involved with Sage developing, and
> "mathematical sanity check" looks like something I can certainly do
> and a nice way to get started, so I will try to jump into this one.
Welcome aboard! At the moment, the
I would like to get more involved with Sage developing, and
"mathematical sanity check" looks like something I can certainly do
and a nice way to get started, so I will try to jump into this one.
Mind that I haven't been involved with Sage any further than the mail
lists so far, so any pointers w
Dear category fans,
David Kohel won't be available in the next two weeks for working on
the category review. Is there any volunteer for reviewing (some of
the) 40 categories listed under his name on:
http://sagetrac.org/sage_trac/wiki/CategoriesCategoriesReview
The files are all
21 matches
Mail list logo
