Let me also mention that I have no plans to change anything regarding
the "inspect" module, this is only about displaying tracebacks.
--
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
I've written up all the equations from this thread together with
detailed step by step derivation:
http://www.theoretical-physics.net/dev/math/complex.html
e.g. the derivatives are here:
http://www.theoretical-physics.net/dev/math/complex.html#complex-derivatives
Most of the examples from this
Yep, still an issue with 6.3 & 6.4 using Fedora 20 32-bit.
My pie-neck be bugging...
...Compiling from source code is no fun; my penguin is tired.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving
Hi y'all!
I have heard that this is a Texan greeting, so, I hope nobody feels
offended...
Am Freitag, 21. November 2014 08:36:40 UTC+1 schrieb Nathann Cohen:
>
> > Also, I can accept that using "he" as a general pronoun is not intended
> to
> > be sexist, especially from a non-nature speaker,
IMHO this would better be solved upstream.
* IPython input transformers should also keep a map from the original
source lines to the transformed lines. By default, that would just be the
identity map.
* IPython already hooks into the linecache used for tracebacks in
get_ipython().compile.cache
PS:
On 2014-11-21, Simon King wrote:
> That's the problem with political correctness. I know that some people,
> mainly in the USA but not so much elsewhere, find PC very important.
Interestingly, I just read in Wikipedia that in the USA, the term
"political correctness" is mainly used by right
On 2014-11-21 14:00, Volker Braun wrote:
IMHO this would better be solved upstream.
I don't want to make this specific to IPython.
I also want to use it for sage-run and sagenb and perhaps other places
too which don't use IPython.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to th
I am not exactly a -1 for the code of conduct, but at some point between -1
and 0.
And of course, i wouldn't quit working on Sage and/or commenting here
regardless of the final decision about the code of conduct. My experience
in the Sage community has been very positive so far. Discussions ha
I wasn't going to go there, but since it was brought up... ncohen knows
that in no way is this me griping about him personally; I remember some far
more vituperative problems from long ago that (thankfully) involve no-one
in this thread, to my recollection.
> Sorry Nathan, but since you asked,
I didn't really follow this conversation, but it sounds like there is an
easy fix and just no one ever committed it. Is there even a ticket?
Yep, still an issue with 6.3 & 6.4 using Fedora 20 32-bit.
> My pie-neck be bugging...
>
> ...Compiling from source code is no fun; my penguin is tired.
You don't have to use IPython interactively, just use its machinery for
evaluating code-from-a-string instead of reinventing the wheel. Really, why
doesn't SageNB just do the equivalent
of sage.repl.interpreter.get_test_shell().run_cell('1+1'), instead there is
multiple temporary files with som
Le mercredi 19 novembre 2014 00:03:27 UTC+1, William a écrit :
>
> >
> > lM = Map[If[# == 0, 0, 1] &, M[[2]][[#[[2]] & /@ M[[3]], #[[2]] & /@
> > M[[4, {2}];
>
> Holy f*2}];ng s&/@!
>
Sure this answer by Sage is less cryptic:
sage: p=Permutation([4,1,2,5,3])
sage: type(p)
but it prevent
- William Stein (cell phone)
On Nov 21, 2014 8:27 AM, "Jean Bétréma" wrote:
>
> Le mercredi 19 novembre 2014 00:03:27 UTC+1, William a écrit :
>>
>> >
>> > lM = Map[If[# == 0, 0, 1] &, M[[2]][[#[[2]] & /@ M[[3]], #[[2]] & /@
>> > M[[4, {2}];
>>
>> Holy f*2}];ng s&/@!
>
>
> Sure this answer by
On 20 November 2014 22:08, Ondřej Čertík wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 7:53 PM, Bill Page wrote:
> ...
>> This problem can be reduced to finding an algorithm to determine
>> if f(x) is everywhere non-negative. Richardson proves that no such
>> algorithm exists.
>
> I see. But what does this ha
On 2014-11-21 15:29, Volker Braun wrote:
You don't have to use IPython interactively, just use its machinery for
evaluating code-from-a-string instead of reinventing the wheel.
What's wrong with exec(compile())? There is not much reinvented in that.
Note that it's not just code evaluated from a
Its not brain surgery, but you want
1) Apply the preparser, possibly other input transformations
2) handle syntax errors from the preparser and show an appropriate error
(not: a traceback inside the preparser)
3) handle errors from the string -> ast compilation and show an appropriate
error
Hi!
On 2014-11-21, mmarco wrote:
> And of course, i wouldn't quit working on Sage and/or commenting here
> regardless of the final decision about the code of conduct.
I forgot to say: I would very likely not quit because of that, even
though I am -1.
> My experience in the Sage community has be
Hi Jean,
On 2014-11-21, Jean Bétréma wrote:
> Sure this answer by Sage is less cryptic:
>
> sage: p=Permutation([4,1,2,5,3])
> sage: type(p)
> 'sage.combinat.permutation.StandardPermutations_all_with_category.element_class'>
>
> but it prevents me (and perhaps others) to do any development in suc
> Which kind of rule would you see in a code of conduct that would make
> messages like those you cited (not all were pointing at you, by the way)
> illegal ?
(1) Statements were made that were not factually correct.
(2) People were directly insulted.
(3) "Conversely, Sage is constantly evolvin
On Nov 21, 2014 5:27 PM, "Jean Bétréma" wrote:
>
> Le mercredi 19 novembre 2014 00:03:27 UTC+1, William a écrit :
>>
>> >
>> > lM = Map[If[# == 0, 0, 1] &, M[[2]][[#[[2]] & /@ M[[3]], #[[2]] & /@
>> > M[[4, {2}];
>>
>> Holy f*2}];ng s&/@!
>
>
> Sure this answer by Sage is less cryptic:
>
> sag
> (1) Statements were made that were not factually correct.
> (2) People were directly insulted.
> (3) "Conversely, Sage is constantly evolving, and earlier decisions that were
> made in good faith may
> sometimes need to be reconsidered. Nonetheless, we should still appreciate
> the hard work do
Hi Simon,
I think your comments are a form of uber political correctness, in that you
are taking the moral high ground that it is not politically correct to be
political correct:) Although I agree that there are some merits to this
perspective I think that this is just a distraction from the cu
On 18 Nov 2014 22:37, "Stefan" wrote:
>
> I don't know if I simply lack the appropriate Mathematica knowledge, but
years ago, when I implemented matroids
> lM = Map[If[# == 0, 0, 1] &, M[[2]][[#[[2]] & /@ M[[3]], #[[2]] & /@
M[[4, {2}];
I am no expert on Mathematica, but Mathematica code does
On Thursday, November 20, 2014 6:06:53 PM UTC-8, William wrote:
>
> Can somebody help me count the votes? I made pass through this long
> and complicated thread, and here's what I seem to have got.
>
I'm -1 to an "enforcable" code of conduct. In extreme cases (which haven't
happened) a list ad
> On sage-dev we're focused on sage, so mathematics and coding. Is is ever
> necessary, or useful, to talk about hating a particular person or a group
of
> people?
If what you have in mind is my "I hate the fact that [...]", you will find
that it hates . Not "this or that person". Don't act as if
On 2014-11-21, William Stein wrote:
> Can somebody help me count the votes? I made pass through this long
> and complicated thread, and here's what I seem to have got:
I'd say it's OK to have such a code, but it's not really OK to actively enforce
it. Such an active enforcement would only be co
Hi Andrew,
Am Freitag, 21. November 2014 20:43:12 UTC+1 schrieb Andrew:
>
> I think your comments are a form of uber political correctness, in that
> you are taking the moral high ground that it is not politically correct to
> be political correct:) Although I agree that there are some merits to
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 9:37 AM, Bill Page wrote:
> On 20 November 2014 22:08, Ondřej Čertík wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 7:53 PM, Bill Page
>> wrote:
>> ...
>>> This problem can be reduced to finding an algorithm to determine
>>> if f(x) is everywhere non-negative. Richardson proves that
On Nov 21, 2014 11:46 AM, "Dr. David Kirkby (Kirkby Microwave Ltd)" <
drkir...@kirkbymicrowave.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> On 18 Nov 2014 22:37, "Stefan" wrote:
> >
> > I don't know if I simply lack the appropriate Mathematica knowledge,
but years ago, when I implemented matroids
> > lM = Map[If[# == 0, 0
The ith element of a list is M[[i]]. An expression ending in & is a
lambda function, with # being the first parameter. f /@ B is equivalent
to map(f, B) (f is applied to each element of B). If[# == 0, 0, 1] is
equivalent to lambda x: x==0 ? 0 : 1
So to me, it looks like:
m2 = [m[2][i] for
30 matches
Mail list logo
