> Some people have proposed that it would be a good idea to have an
> architecture for comparisons that are useful for making output (e.g.,
> a list of complex numbers) be returned in some well-defined order, but
> which wouldn't be __cmp__. Then one can order complex (number
> field, etc.) el
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Christopher Swenson
wrote:
> Fair enough. :)
It's just that often people freak all the time about Sage allowing "<"
and complex numbers in the same room.
Some people have proposed that it would be a good idea to have an
architecture for comparisons that are usefu
Fair enough. :)
--Christopher
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 12:46, William Stein wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 9:30 AM, Christopher Swenson
> wrote:
> > Looking in rings/complex_number.pyx, it looks like it a simple lex
> ordering.
> > I would bet that this is because people would be annoyed th
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 9:30 AM, Christopher Swenson
wrote:
> Looking in rings/complex_number.pyx, it looks like it a simple lex ordering.
> I would bet that this is because people would be annoyed that you get an
> exception if you tried to sort a list of complex numbers, even though you
> can't
Looking in rings/complex_number.pyx, it looks like it a simple lex
ordering. I would bet that this is because people would be annoyed that
you get an exception if you tried to sort a list of complex numbers, even
though you can't. :)
--Christopher
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 12:22, Volker Braun wro
Now that's just cheating.
--Christopher
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 11:58, Nils Bruin wrote:
> On Jan 25, 7:05 am, Christopher Swenson wrote:
> > If we have possible confusions about the numberiung, we should give them
> > complex number identifier. So, 37, 37 + i, 37 - i, etc.
> >
> > Who knows w
If we have possible confusions about the numberiung, we should give them
complex number identifier. So, 37, 37 + i, 37 - i, etc.
Who knows which one comes first then?
--Christopher
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 09:39, Sébastien Labbé wrote:
> > > I thought last time we had this discussion (for 35.5
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 10:05 PM, Jason Grout
wrote:
> On 1/24/12 11:59 PM, William Stein wrote:
>>
>> There will be >= 1 bug days. Fractional numbers are fine.
>
>
> I thought last time we had this discussion (for 35.5), the conclusion was to
> just have integer Sage Days, and sometimes they wo
