Hi Keshav,
On 2012-03-26, Keshav Kini wrote:
> Simon King writes:
>> sage: is_Integer(int(5))
>> False
>> sage: is_Integer(5/1)
>> False
>> sage: int(5) in ZZ
>> True
>> sage: 5/1 in ZZ
>> True
>
> Huh. It seems like this is the opposite of what you'd expect, doesn't
> it? "objec
John H Palmieri writes:
> The functions like "is_Integer" are deprecated. If you compare the alternative
>
>isinstance(5/1, Integer)
>
> with
>
>5/1 in ZZ
>
> I definitely want the first to return False, and I'm also happy if the second
> returns True. It makes more sense to me for the sec
On Monday, March 26, 2012 9:32:45 AM UTC-7, Keshav Kini wrote:
>
> Simon King writes:
> > sage: is_Integer(int(5))
> > False
> > sage: is_Integer(5/1)
> > False
> > sage: int(5) in ZZ
> > True
> > sage: 5/1 in ZZ
> > True
>
> Huh. It seems like this is the opposite of what you'd e
Simon King writes:
> sage: is_Integer(int(5))
> False
> sage: is_Integer(5/1)
> False
> sage: int(5) in ZZ
> True
> sage: 5/1 in ZZ
> True
Huh. It seems like this is the opposite of what you'd expect, doesn't
it? "object in object" seems to be a query of whether a certain thing is
Hi!
On 2012-03-26, Mike Hansen wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 11:06 PM, Starx wrote:
> See sage/all.py -- they are only deprecated from Sage's "global
> namespace" in order to avoid users seeing things like
>
> sage: is_Integer(int(2))
> False
Since I talked about timings in my previous post
PS:
On 2012-03-26, Simon King wrote:
> Also note that by some recent patch, the recommended way of testing properties
> is not only better from a mathematical point of view, but it is also
> **faster** (at least if we are talking about a category without a base
> ring):
>
> (with sage-5.0.beta8)
Hi!
On 2012-03-26, Mike Hansen wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 11:06 PM, Starx wrote:
>> 1) How are functions depreciated?
>
> See sage/all.py
Namely
message = "\nUsing %(name)s from the top level is deprecated since it was
designed to be used by developers rather than end users.\nIt most li
