I'm not sure about VMware. One advantage to laptops is that, because
of the number of student developers in the UW area, they could be used
as loaners as well. Also, I've heard rumors that vista does not play nice
with dual boots. Also, William used the word "dedicated". Will a big machine
runnin
> I agree completely with Yi. The point of purchasing machines is to test
> different hardware platforms. For different OS installs, we just need
> to use some virtualization software. That said, I tried pretty hard to
> setup VMWare server once and failed miserably. If anybody (especially
>
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 04:57:11 -0800, David Joyner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> I'm not sure about VMware. One advantage to laptops is that, because
> of the number of student developers in the UW area, they could be used
> as loaners as well.
I do not think laptops are suitable for creating a
On 12/13/06, William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No. But timing and performance are primarily hardware issues
> not flavor-of-linux issues. Vmware would *only* be used to
> provide access to a range of Linux disributions for build testing
> (and this could already be set up on sage.math)
On Dec 12, 2006, at 5:00 PM, William Stein wrote:
>
> On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 11:10:29 -0800, Robert Bradshaw
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Dec 12, 2006, at 3:55 AM, David Joyner wrote:
>> I would say that I think Java is the tool for the job, but the
>> question is to roll our own "pure" java
William Stein wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 10:27:16 -0800, Nick Alexander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi William,
> >
> > An oddity in ref.pdf. Pyrex filenames get embedded in the output, as
> > in:
> >
> > inverse mod()
> > File: sage/rings/integer.pyx (starting at line 1671)
> >
> > Is
Another consideration, since you've already decided on a Mac Pro, is
to get Parallels (a commerical virtualization package for OS X). It
will allow you to run all the Linux and Windows Distributions you want
on the Mac Pro. Plus, if you wait until late Jan. to purchase the
machine, it will proba
Does anyone else think that 173.binary() should be legal? Currently the
preparser mangles it into a syntax error, it thinks the dot is a
decimal point. One currently needs to do (173).binary() instead.
David
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send ema
William Stein wrote:
> If you would like, you could help me make a precise list of SAGE
> development machines that I should buy, by editing this wiki
> page (or emailing me):
>
> http://sage.math.washington.edu:9001/hardware
>
> All SAGE developers would have accounts on all these machines,
>
> Does anyone else think that 173.binary() should be legal? Currently
> the
> preparser mangles it into a syntax error, it thinks the dot is a
> decimal point. One currently needs to do (173).binary() instead.
IMO it should be legal. And moreover tab completion should be made to work.
Will be
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 09:45:51 -0800, Nick Alexander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>> No. That is a result of a change in SAGE -- namely I added an option to
>> SAGEX
>> so it records the file and location where functions are defined. This
>> is
>> used at runtime for source code viewing, and dis
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 09:43:08 -0800, Robert Bradshaw
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 12, 2006, at 5:00 PM, William Stein wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 11:10:29 -0800, Robert Bradshaw
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On Dec 12, 2006, at 3:55 AM, David Joyner wrote:
>>> I would say that I thin
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 10:07:31 -0800, Jason Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Another consideration, since you've already decided on a Mac Pro, is
> to get Parallels (a commerical virtualization package for OS X). It
> will allow you to run all the Linux and Windows Distributions you want
>
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 11:17:35 -0800, Jaap Spies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> All SAGE developers would have accounts on all these machines,
>> and they would be used for:
>>
>>(1) building binaries
>>
>>(2) benchmarking algorithms and code
>>
>
> One other point. It is not only a questi
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 10:54:58 -0800, David Harvey
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Does anyone else think that 173.binary() should be legal? Currently the
> preparser mangles it into a syntax error, it thinks the dot is a
> decimal point. One currently needs to do (173).binary() instead.
This que
My first response to this was revulsion. I find the consequences intriguing,
but also a little revolting.
sage: 173.is_prime()
True
sage: 173.integrate('t') #173 is a function?
865*t
sage: 173.sqrt()
13.1529
Ok... fine. But how do we know what type 173 is, off the bat? ZZ can be
redefined..
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006, Iftikhar Burhanuddin wrote:
>
> > Does anyone else think that 173.binary() should be legal? Currently
> > the
> > preparser mangles it into a syntax error, it thinks the dot is a
> > decimal point. One currently needs to do (173).binary() instead.
>
> IMO it should be legal.
On Dec 13, 2006, at 3:06 PM, Iftikhar Burhanuddin wrote:
> On the same lines, I would be happy is tab completion worked in the
> following scenario.
>
> sage: SupersingularModule(11).
>
> Should this be legal? And should be implemented without actually
> creating
> the oject with *just* syntati
William Stein wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 09:45:51 -0800, Nick Alexander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >> No. That is a result of a change in SAGE -- namely I added an option to
> >> SAGEX
> >> so it records the file and location where functions are defined. This
> >> is
> >> used at runtime
> On the same lines, I would be happy is tab completion worked in the
> following scenario.
>
> sage: SupersingularModule(11).
>
> Should this be legal? And should be implemented without actually creating
> the oject with *just* syntatic checking? What say folks?
No! If you want to know the type
> > sage: SupersingularModule(11).
> >
> > Should this be legal? And should be implemented without actually
> > creating
> > the oject with *just* syntatic checking? What say folks?
>
> How on earth would one implement that? There's no guarantee that the
We need to think about how to implement th
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 12:09:25 -0800, Nick Alexander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>> I am against enhancing the docstrings as you suggest. I think we should
>> write code to parse the original .pyx files, given the filename and line
>> number information. There is no extra overhead spacewise, and t
On 12/13/06, William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On an unrelated note, is there a reason that ?, ??, hg_sage.diff(), etc
> > use the pager as opposed to printing normally? Is this configurable?
>
> For ?, ?? this is an IPython question. I think for IPython
> this is determined by the e
William Stein wrote:
>
>
> Does anybody on sage-devel want to volunteer to help with this
> upgrading of linux distros on a virtual internal machine, when
> it ever gets created? :-)
>
As I am retired, I do have time(?) and can do almost as much as I please.
I could volonteer, but during the
William Stein wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 12:09:25 -0800, Nick Alexander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >> I am against enhancing the docstrings as you suggest. I think we should
> >> write code to parse the original .pyx files, given the filename and line
> >> number information. There is no e
> Let's not thrash the idea because it is difficult to implement! First lets
> answer this Q: is there any value-addition to user-friendliness due to
> this feature? IMO ... yes! What say?
It's not difficult. It would be _impossible_ without rewriting the entire
Python language. Go ahead, take
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Let's not thrash the idea because it is difficult to implement! First lets
> > answer this Q: is there any value-addition to user-friendliness due to
> > this feature? IMO ... yes! What say?
>
> It's not difficult. It would be _impossible_ without
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 12:26:26 -0800, Iftikhar Burhanuddin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> > sage: SupersingularModule(11).
>> >
>> > Should this be legal? And should be implemented without actually
>> > creating
>> > the oject with *just* syntatic checking? What say folks?
>>
>> How on earth wou
> (1) I'm against allowing 5.factor() to work.
> (2) I'm against syntactic parsing to do tab completion.
Please support your against-ness.
Regards,
Ifti.
ps:
> So I'm open to more flexible tab completion...
It's good to have an open BDFL at the helm!
--~--~-~--~~~--
>> def f(x):
>> blah
>>
>> It's really easy to know where the definition ends.
>
> Parsers have this funny way of bit-rotting over time... I'll write
> tests :)
Definitely!
> BTW, inspect.py does not parse source code. All the information is
> stored at compile time (as you would expect --
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 15:43:27 -0800, Iftikhar Burhanuddin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> (1) I'm against allowing 5.factor() to work.
>
>> (2) I'm against syntactic parsing to do tab completion.
>
> Please support your against-ness.
I think my against-ness has been very amply supported by othe
William Stein wrote:
> >> def f(x):
> >> blah
> >>
> >> It's really easy to know where the definition ends.
> >
> > Parsers have this funny way of bit-rotting over time... I'll write
> > tests :)
>
> Definitely!
>
> > BTW, inspect.py does not parse source code. All the information is
> > sto
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 17:26:41 -0800, Nick Alexander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I could, but if I'm not going to embed the results in docstrings I'd
> have to find them at run-time, and the hassles of doing that are
> probably worse than the hassles of parsing in the first place.
You could pick
William Stein wrote:
> Hello,
>
> If you would like, you could help me make a precise list of SAGE
> development machines that I should buy, by editing this wiki
> page (or emailing me):
>
> http://sage.math.washington.edu:9001/hardware
Just in case they are being considered, laptops are a bad i
Hello,
I've released sage-1.5.0.2. You should be able to "sage -upgrade" to it
from previous versions of SAGE.
Enjoy!
william
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [
35 matches
Mail list logo
