Nick Alexander wrote:
>>> Did I miss a thread?
>> Yes, evidently. I'll track these discussions down when I have time
>> later today.
>
> If everyone else is satisfied, then I'm satisfied.
>
> +1
>
Maybe it would be good to have a wiki page that tracks a potential
package's discussion main
>> Did I miss a thread?
>
> Yes, evidently. I'll track these discussions down when I have time
> later today.
If everyone else is satisfied, then I'm satisfied.
+1
Nick
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 11:43 AM, Nick Alexander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> This is discussed at great length in the pages that I linked to
>
> I don't see any discussion of alternatives at http://
> pyprocessing.berlios.de/ and I certainly don't see any argument
> supporting pyprocessing ove
> This is discussed at great length in the pages that I linked to
I don't see any discussion of alternatives at http://
pyprocessing.berlios.de/ and I certainly don't see any argument
supporting pyprocessing over any alternative with direct reference to
Sage. Where is that?
And where is th
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 10:46 AM, Fernando Perez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 10:35 AM, William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 10:30 AM, Fernando Perez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 10:09 AM, William Stein <[EMA
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 10:35 AM, William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 10:30 AM, Fernando Perez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 10:09 AM, William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>
>>> Anyway, since every single person voted +1 and nobo
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 10:36 AM, Gary Furnish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I already gave this a verbal +1, but does anyone know what happens if
> you fork a sage process with open pexpect interface?
I'm sure it's a problem that we'll have to address, and there are ways to
do so (e.g. in the f
I already gave this a verbal +1, but does anyone know what happens if
you fork a sage process with open pexpect interface?
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 10:26 AM, William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 10:21 AM, Nick Alexander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Anyway, sinc
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 10:30 AM, Fernando Perez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 10:09 AM, William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>
>> Anyway, since every single person voted +1 and nobody voted -1 or
>> had issues, I declare this package officially accepted.
>
> My onl
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 10:09 AM, William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Anyway, since every single person voted +1 and nobody voted -1 or
> had issues, I declare this package officially accepted.
My only suggestion would be to use the version that will be used for
inclusion into python it
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 10:21 AM, Nick Alexander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Anyway, since every single person voted +1 and nobody voted -1 or
>> had issues, I declare this package officially accepted.
>
> -1! That was fast.
It was a full 3 days.
> What happened to the inclusion procedure
> Anyway, since every single person voted +1 and nobody voted -1 or
> had issues, I declare this package officially accepted.
-1! That was fast.
What happened to the inclusion procedures? In particular, I am
interested to know what other options were investigated and why
pyprocessing is co
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 10:30 AM, Harald Schilly
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Jun 22, 10:00 am, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> So please vote for or against this proposal, or raise questions, etc.
>
> +1 from me, too.
>
> Just one question, there is a section in the documentati
On Jun 22, 10:00 am, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So please vote for or against this proposal, or raise questions, etc.
+1 from me, too.
Just one question, there is a section in the documentation about
client/server communications. could this be used to simplify some code
in dsag
+1
Cheers,
Michael
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URLs: http://w
+1.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URLs: http://www.sagemath.org
+1
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 4:00 AM, William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I would like to propose adding pyprocessing as a standard spkg to Sage.
> http://pyprocessing.berlios.de/
>
> This is *by far* the best tool I've ever seen for making use of multiple
> processors on a
17 matches
Mail list logo
