On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 1:33 PM, William Stein wrote:
> Also, we could have a dmg available that would install GCC (including
> gfortran) somewhere, and could be used to build Sage on OS X.
+big_number
Even outside the context of Sage, when teaching purely 'scipy stack'
to students (many of whom
Hi,
so far, three distinct topics evolved in this thread:
1.
Make Sage not needing a C compiler, when one changed only .py files
and then types "sage -b". That's the topic of trac #12365 (see the
original post), and up to now, I read only supportive comments (to
which I say +1 also).
2.
Discuss
On 1/27/12 2:18 AM, Fernando Perez wrote:
If you guys can put out a gcc/gfortran installer for the Mac that's a
simple download, click, install, you'll benefit lots of people even
beyond Sage.
https://github.com/kennethreitz/osx-gcc-installer is one possible place
to look for gcc, at least.
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 12:55 AM, Jason Grout
wrote:
> https://github.com/kennethreitz/osx-gcc-installer is one possible place to
> look for gcc, at least.
Nice, thanks! I didn't know about that, it's excellent and does help a lot.
Cheers,
f
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-d
I have a patch to remove unneeded dependencies of the Sage library in
spkg/standard/deps (the patch only touches this file). This might speed
up builds of Sage, especially upgrades.
Please review
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/12329
Thanks,
Jeroen.
--
To post to this group, send an
I have just tested on chromium and firefor under linux. It does work
on both (but i have the impression that performance is better in
chromium). Strangely, it does work on the version of firefox that i
have compiled in my computer, but it doesn't in the binary version
from the firefox site. I guess
I just noticed this post to the arXiv. Is Meinholf Geck in touch with
Sage?
--Dave
Title: PyCox: Computing with (finite) Coxeter groups and Iwahori-Hecke
algebras
Authors: Meinolf Geck
Categories: math.RT
Comments: 31 pages
MSC-class: 20C40, 20C08
\\
We introduce the computer algebra package {
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 00:51, Georg S. Weber
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> so far, three distinct topics evolved in this thread:
>
> 1.
> Make Sage not needing a C compiler, when one changed only .py files
> and then types "sage -b". That's the topic of trac #12365 (see the
> original post), and up to now, I
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 1:10 AM, mmarco wrote:
> I have just tested on chromium and firefor under linux. It does work
> on both (but i have the impression that performance is better in
> chromium). Strangely, it does work on the version of firefox that i
> have compiled in my computer, but it does
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 1:21 AM, davidp wrote:
> I just noticed this post to the arXiv. Is Meinholf Geck in touch with
> Sage?
>
> --Dave
I'm not sure, but he mentions Sage numerous times on page 1, and
suggests Sage was the inspiration for him writing the code in Python.
Also, he explains how t
So I've been looking into restarting ticket #21 now that we have
argparse in python 2.7. The basic premise of the ticket was to make
our command line options use a standard library, however, since it was
opened (a long time ago), the command line options have become an
incredibly cluttered mess as
Come over to Padelford: Robert and I are working on something like this. :-)
David
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 02:04, R. Andrew Ohana wrote:
> So I've been looking into restarting ticket #21 now that we have
> argparse in python 2.7. The basic premise of the ticket was to make
> our command line opt
P.S. Link to the ticket http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/21
(although most of what is there is old to very old).
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 02:04, R. Andrew Ohana wrote:
> So I've been looking into restarting ticket #21 now that we have
> argparse in python 2.7. The basic premise of the tic
I'm +1 to making sweeping changes to argument syntax & parsing in sage-5.0
or sage-6.0.
On Friday, January 27, 2012, R. Andrew Ohana wrote:
> So I've been looking into restarting ticket #21 now that we have
> argparse in python 2.7. The basic premise of the ticket was to make
> our command line o
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 01:21:05AM -0800, davidp wrote:
> I just noticed this post to the arXiv. Is Meinholf Geck in touch with
> Sage?
Yes! We had invited him two years ago at Sage Days 20 in Marseille.
He is invited again at the upcoming Sage-Combinat days in Montreal,
precisely to discuss the
On Friday, January 27, 2012, William Stein wrote:
> I'm +1 to making sweeping changes to argument syntax & parsing in
sage-5.0 or sage-6.0.
>
Though I don't want to loose any features... and have some respect for our
1-year deprecation policy.
> On Friday, January 27, 2012, R. Andrew Ohana
wrot
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 02:11, William Stein wrote:
>
>
> On Friday, January 27, 2012, William Stein wrote:
>> I'm +1 to making sweeping changes to argument syntax & parsing in sage-5.0
>> or sage-6.0.
>>
>
> Though I don't want to loose any features... and have some respect for our
> 1-year depr
On 2012-01-27 11:04, R. Andrew Ohana wrote:
> So I've been looking into restarting ticket #21 now that we have
> argparse in python 2.7.
-1 to making Python a requirement to run $SAGE_ROOT/sage.
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group,
Why? So that things like sage -i can work without python?
David
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 02:15, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> On 2012-01-27 11:04, R. Andrew Ohana wrote:
>> So I've been looking into restarting ticket #21 now that we have
>> argparse in python 2.7.
> -1 to making Python a requirement to
On 2012-01-27 11:17, David Roe wrote:
> Why? So that things like sage -i can work without python?
Exactly.
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 02:17, David Roe wrote:
> Why? So that things like sage -i can work without python?
> David
Which is a valid, given that we can do that now before building sage.
>
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 02:15, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>> On 2012-01-27 11:04, R. Andrew Ohana wrote:
>>> S
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 02:07, David Roe wrote:
> Come over to Padelford: Robert and I are working on something like this. :-)
Is it at all similar to what I proposed? If not, please share :)
> David
>
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 02:04, R. Andrew Ohana wrote:
>> So I've been looking into restart
We could bake into $SAGE_ROOT/sage (a shell script) the functionality to
launch anything someone with an unbuilt copy of Sage would need (such as
release management utilities or whatever you have in mind), which should be
a pretty small subset of Sage's full functionality (right?). And then
$SA
We're working on rewriting the doctest framework only. So we're still
just sticking to hyphens, but are making them UNIX-compliant: --gdb
instead of -gdb for example. My first impression of your proposal is
that I like it, though there are some ambiguities in the syntax: in
mercurial the subcomma
If we keep $SAGE_ROOT/sage as a shell script that calls the python script
$SAGE_ROOT/local/bin/sage-sage, we could work around the optional
subparsers issue in $SAGE_ROOT/sage itself, i.e. insert an argument "--" if
$1 is not in the list of sage-sage subparsers hardcoded into
$SAGE_ROOT/sage .
On Friday, January 27, 2012, Keshav Kini wrote:
> We could bake into $SAGE_ROOT/sage (a shell script) the functionality to
launch anything someone with an unbuilt copy of Sage would need (such as
release management utilities or whatever you have in mind), which should be
a pretty small subset of S
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 18:28, William Stein wrote:
>> (Incidentally, why does $SAGE_LOCAL point to $SAGE_ROOT/local/bin and not
>> $SAGE_ROOT/local as the name would suggest?)
>>
>
> It does point to $SAGE_ROOT/local.
Oops, why did I think it didn't? Sorry for the noise. (I'll keep that
in mind
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 18:26, David Roe wrote:
> We're working on rewriting the doctest framework only. So we're still
> just sticking to hyphens, but are making them UNIX-compliant: --gdb
> instead of -gdb for example. My first impression of your proposal is
> that I like it, though there are
William did this, apparently.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sage-devel/2aANS7hEdMQ/E7WiRKN5Q4EJ
-Keshav
Join us in #sagemath on irc.freenode.net !
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel+unsubscr
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 02:26, David Roe wrote:
> We're working on rewriting the doctest framework only. So we're still
> just sticking to hyphens, but are making them UNIX-compliant: --gdb
> instead of -gdb for example. My first impression of your proposal is
> that I like it, though there are
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 02:32, Keshav Kini wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 18:26, David Roe wrote:
>> We're working on rewriting the doctest framework only. So we're still
>> just sticking to hyphens, but are making them UNIX-compliant: --gdb
>> instead of -gdb for example. My first impression
On Jan 27, 2012, at 11:32 AM, Keshav Kini wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 18:26, David Roe wrote:
>> We're working on rewriting the doctest framework only. So we're still
>> just sticking to hyphens, but are making them UNIX-compliant: --gdb
>> instead of -gdb for example. My first impression o
On 2012-01-27 11:23, Keshav Kini wrote:
> We could bake into $SAGE_ROOT/sage (a shell script) the functionality to
> launch anything someone with an unbuilt copy of Sage would need (such as
> release management utilities or whatever you have in mind), which should
> be a pretty small subset of Sage
Le 26/01/2012 10:53, Dima Pasechnik a écrit :
Is the popcount() there even big-endian/little-endian safe?
It's not obvious. As well, it will blow on architectures that have
a different from x86 idea about the length of int...
So one quick test would be to use __builtin_popcount(i) and see if it
m
On Jan 27, 12:31 am, "Justin C. Walker" wrote:
> On Jan 26, 2012, at 20:00 , kcrisman wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 26, 10:55 pm, kcrisman wrote:
> >> My apologies if I have missed a reference to this elsewhere; it's late
> >> and I didn't search as thoroughly as I might have, though
Hell !!
> Anyway, I finally have sage-4.8 again on that box, and the result of using
> the builtin popcount is that it still doesn't work.
>
> Where do we go from that point on?
Hmmm O_o
Well, I read the code again and the only weird thing I was able to
find was that : the function find_
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 02:05:25PM +0100, Julien Puydt wrote:
> Le 26/01/2012 10:53, Dima Pasechnik a écrit :
> >Is the popcount() there even big-endian/little-endian safe?
> >It's not obvious. As well, it will blow on architectures that have
> >a different from x86 idea about the length of int...
Le 27/01/2012 16:25, Nathann Cohen a écrit :
Hell !!
Anyway, I finally have sage-4.8 again on that box, and the result of using
the builtin popcount is that it still doesn't work.
Where do we go from that point on?
Hmmm O_o
Well, I read the code again and the only weird thing I was
Le 27/01/2012 16:52, Willem Jan Palenstijn a écrit :
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 02:05:25PM +0100, Julien Puydt wrote:
Le 26/01/2012 10:53, Dima Pasechnik a écrit :
Is the popcount() there even big-endian/little-endian safe?
It's not obvious. As well, it will blow on architectures that have
a diffe
Le 27/01/2012 17:02, Julien Puydt a écrit :
Le 27/01/2012 16:52, Willem Jan Palenstijn a écrit :
Is char signed or unsigned on your platform?
Good question ; how do I find out?
If I put the following in test.c :
#include
#include
int
main()
{
printf ("%d\n", CHAR_MIN);
return 0;
}
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 05:07:56PM +0100, Julien Puydt wrote:
> Le 27/01/2012 17:02, Julien Puydt a écrit :
> >Le 27/01/2012 16:52, Willem Jan Palenstijn a écrit :
> >>Is char signed or unsigned on your platform?
> >
> >Good question ; how do I find out?
>
> If I put the following in test.c :
>
>
Le 27/01/2012 17:14, Willem Jan Palenstijn a écrit :
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 05:07:56PM +0100, Julien Puydt wrote:
Le 27/01/2012 17:02, Julien Puydt a écrit :
Le 27/01/2012 16:52, Willem Jan Palenstijn a écrit :
Is char signed or unsigned on your platform?
Good question ; how do I find out?
Very interesting!
Perhaps some other doctest failures on ARM are also related to unsigned
char business? E.g. the pickling problem might be also due to this messing
with bits
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an emai
Wait... It means that on your platform the default "char" are unsigned ? O_o
I'm almost scared right now O_O
Nathann
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options,
Le 27/01/2012 18:00, Nathann Cohen a écrit :
Wait... It means that on your platform the default "char" are unsigned ? O_o
I'm almost scared right now O_O
You'll be happy to learn (eh, I just learnt it this very afternoon) that
the C standards says that char can be either "unsigned char" or "s
Le 27/01/2012 17:56, Dima Pasechnik a écrit :
Perhaps some other doctest failures on ARM are also related to unsigned
char business? E.g. the pickling problem might be also due to this
messing with bits
I'll get to this pickling problem sooner or later ; I've known it to be
there ever sinc
>> I'm almost scared right now O_O
>
> You'll be happy to learn (eh, I just learnt it this very afternoon) that the
> C standards says that char can be either "unsigned char" or "signed char"...
> so if you want to be safe, just use the most precise form.
Ok now I'm scared O_O;;;
> Here is the ti
Le 27/01/2012 18:08, Nathann Cohen a écrit :
I'm almost scared right now O_O
You'll be happy to learn (eh, I just learnt it this very afternoon) that the
C standards says that char can be either "unsigned char" or "signed char"...
so if you want to be safe, just use the most precise form.
Ok
> Well, no : this is an independent change and hence needs an independent
> patch.
Oh. Ok, well, it was juste one line and changed nothing to the code's behaviour.
> between 0 and the cardinal of the graph
> 1. add a "cdef unsigned char next_set" as an aside but related fix
>
> in a new ticket wi
> Currently one must write
>
> sage: matrix([[1, 2], [3, 4]])
> [1 2]
> [3 4]
> sage: matrix([[1, 2], [3, 4]]) * matrix([[5, 6], [7, 8]])
> [19 22]
> [43 50]
Well, one can avoid writing to much square brackets by doing :
sage: matrix(2, [1,2,3,4])
[1 2]
[3 4]
sage: matrix(2, [1, 2, 3, 4]]) * matr
On Friday, January 27, 2012 2:19:59 AM UTC-8, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>
> On 2012-01-27 11:17, David Roe wrote:
> > Why? So that things like sage -i can work without python?
> Exactly.
>
And also for speed issues, as William brought up a year or two ago when we
discussed this sort of thing. If
Instead of sprinkling "unsigned" around until it works, we should IMHO use
C99 integer types if the code assumes signedness and/or a particular bit
width for "char". Just include inttypes.h (C) or cinttypes (C++), then
int8_t is a signed 8-bit integer and uint8_t is an unsigned 8-bit integer.
-
Hi @all,
I'm very new to the developers list.
About my background: I'm studying physics (in Berlin) and I'm using sage
regularly for some physical calculations.
Three days ago I wondered if there is any possibility to create a
"numpy-enabled" function from a sage's symbolic expression. But i
coul
Le 27/01/2012 19:14, Volker Braun a écrit :
Instead of sprinkling "unsigned" around until it works,
Well, that's not exactly what happened.
Once it was recognized that the problem was that the code was using
"char" thinking it meant "signed char" and that was wrong (surprise!),
then I checke
I didn't doubt that what you do works, but even "unsigned char" isn't the
same as a unsigned 8-bit integer on every platform. Plus whoever will
contribute in the future is bound to trip over the same issue again,
omitting "unsigned" because its not necessary on i386. While "unsigned
char" is cl
Well, I think that looks very useful. I often get frustrated using
numpy in Sage, this looks like it would make quite a few things
easier. So you get a +1 from me at least.
-Marshall Hampton
On Jan 27, 12:27 pm, Maximilian Trescher
wrote:
> Hi @all,
>
> I'm very new to the developers list.
> A
56 matches
Mail list logo
