On 2 May 2013 20:11, kcrisman wrote:
>
>
> On Thursday, May 2, 2013 3:11:26 PM UTC-4, kcrisman wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Or perhaps you were just quoting Monty Python after all and I should
>>> myself ire domum.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, I think so.
>
>
> Sorry, that sounded rude - I meant "yes" to the Monty Python,
On Thursday, May 2, 2013 3:11:26 PM UTC-4, kcrisman wrote:
>
>
> Or perhaps you were just quoting Monty Python after all and I should
>> myself ire domum.
>>
>>
> Yes, I think so.
>
Sorry, that sounded rude - I meant "yes" to the Monty Python, not the ire
domum.
--
You received this messag
> Or perhaps you were just quoting Monty Python after all and I should
> myself ire domum.
>
>
Yes, I think so.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to
On 2 May 2013 19:41, leif wrote:
> Volker Braun:
>
>> On Thursday, May 2, 2013 6:42:48 PM UTC+1, Nils Bruin wrote:
>>
>> Furthermore, to express a requirement the optative
>> subjunctive mood is probably more appropriate than a future tense.
>>
>>
>> ROMANES EUNT DOMUS
Well it is 41 yea
>
> No Latin, definitely not :-)
>
> @require_mutable / @require_immutable
>
+1
--Mike
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@goo
On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 8:09 PM, Rob Beezer wrote:
> A fix is available at http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/10543
Good, because this is a major bug! See below for how it could wreak havoc:
sage: A = matrix(QQ,2,range(4))
sage: C = A.echelon_form()
sage: C[0,0] = 20
sage: A.echelon_for
On Dec 27, 2010, at 11:25 , Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Justin C. Walker wrote:
>> Thanks for the reply.
>>
>> On Dec 26, 2010, at 03:17 , Volker Braun wrote:
>>
>>> Python has no "const". You can always manually change the innards of your
>>> class. The set_immu
On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Justin C. Walker wrote:
> Thanks for the reply.
>
> On Dec 26, 2010, at 03:17 , Volker Braun wrote:
>
>> Python has no "const". You can always manually change the innards of your
>> class. The set_immutable() is just implemented by hand.
>
> Tuples are "really" im
Thanks for the reply.
On Dec 26, 2010, at 03:17 , Volker Braun wrote:
> Python has no "const". You can always manually change the innards of your
> class. The set_immutable() is just implemented by hand.
Tuples are "really" immutable, correct? Is this possible because the tuple is
an internal
