On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 9:11 AM, Nils Bruin wrote:
> On Saturday, January 11, 2014 6:26:59 AM UTC-8, Volker Braun wrote:
>>
>> Would it be possible to move real literals to their own parent? Arithmetic
>> operations with other parents should always cast the literal to the other
>> parent first, an
On Saturday, January 11, 2014 6:26:59 AM UTC-8, Volker Braun wrote:
> Would it be possible to move real literals to their own parent? Arithmetic
> operations with other parents should always cast the literal to the other
> parent first, and arithmetic operations within the real literals would en
On Monday, January 6, 2014 6:50:05 PM UTC-10, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>
> By that logic, rather than preparsing 1/2 we should force the user to
> write ZZ(1) / ZZ(2).
+1 It is important that the Sage REPL be easy to use with "mathematical"
notation as far as possible. You should be able to inpu
On 2014-01-06 22:46, Zimmermann Paul wrote:
Nils,
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 13:18:07 -0800 (PST)
From: Nils Bruin
On Monday, January 6, 2014 12:46:19 PM UTC-8, Zimmermann Paul wrote:
What about getting rid of real literals?
I think they exist mainly to let
RealField(200)(1e-20)
wor
Nils Bruin wrote:
> Here is something I think is really a bug:
>
> sage: parent(RealField(200)(1) + 1e-20)
> Real Field with 53 bits of precision
Yes. And I'd say the behavior of RealField(200)(RR(1e-20))) is a bug as
well (the same bug in fact).
So I think there are two different issues here:
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 1:46 PM, Zimmermann Paul
wrote:
>Nils,
>
>> Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 13:18:07 -0800 (PST)
>> From: Nils Bruin
>>
>> On Monday, January 6, 2014 12:46:19 PM UTC-8, Zimmermann Paul wrote:
>>
>> > What about getting rid of real literals?
>> >
>>
>> I think they exist mainl
Hi,
On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 01:18:07PM -0800, Nils Bruin wrote:
> Here is something I think is really a bug:
>
> sage: parent(RealField(200)(1) + 1e-20)
> Real Field with 53 bits of precision
On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 10:46:44PM +0100, Zimmermann Paul wrote:
> this demonstrates another inconsistenc
Nils,
> Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 13:18:07 -0800 (PST)
> From: Nils Bruin
>
> On Monday, January 6, 2014 12:46:19 PM UTC-8, Zimmermann Paul wrote:
>
> > What about getting rid of real literals?
> >
>
> I think they exist mainly to let
>
> RealField(200)(1e-20)
>
> work in the first place
On Monday, January 6, 2014 12:46:19 PM UTC-8, Zimmermann Paul wrote:
> What about getting rid of real literals?
>
I think they exist mainly to let
RealField(200)(1e-20)
work in the first place: The parser needs to generate code to instantiate
the constant 1e-20 somewhere and that constant sho
