Re: [sage-devel] Re: Catalog of algebras: the definition of an algebra

On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 12:30:29PM +, Simon King wrote: > I'd be fine with having MagmaticAlgebras(), and keeping Algebras() as a > synonyme of MagmaticAlgebras().Associative().Unital(). For the record: that's what's currently implemented in Sage. Cheers, Nicol

Re: [sage-devel] removing the dev scripts

On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 07:56:51AM +0200, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > On 2015-05-07 22:36, Volker Braun wrote: > >We could add "git trac" as a standard package now, I haven't made any > >changes outside of the release management stuff in a while This would be nice! As well as for configuration-fre

Re: [sage-devel] Re: matrices: matrix space vs matrix group

On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 11:54:09AM +0200, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > I'm sure we are already breaking that specification all over the place when > coercion is involved. Indeed. And I get bitten by it every now and then. > So I see Python's specification as a guideline and something nice to > have, b

[sage-devel] Re: max(sin(x),cos(x)) = sin(x)

Okay, so what do we do with this bug? 1) make Sage's default 'max' be 'max_symbolic' (yes/no) 2) Return "Unknown" instead of False in the __bool__ function od symbolic comparisons (yes/no) Vincent: I am asking you especially, since you were initially opposed to it. I only want something (anythi

Re: [sage-devel] Re: a patchbot named eddy

Hi! On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 12:48:01PM -0700, Frédéric Chapoton wrote: >Who is running eddy ? Please ? A French person, it seems. Oops, it's us at LRI! Thanks for the report. We updated it yesterday, so hopefully it's behaving properly now. >By the way, please patchbot owners, r

Re: [sage-devel] Re: a patchbot named eddy

On 12/05/15 09:30, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote: > Hi! > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 12:48:01PM -0700, Frédéric Chapoton wrote: >>Who is running eddy ? Please ? A French person, it seems. > > Oops, it's us at LRI! Thanks for the report. > > We updated it yesterday, so hopefully it's behavin

Re: [sage-devel] Re: a patchbot named eddy

> Good idea. Can you do a pull request? Autant je suis d'accord avec toi, autant je me rends compte que dans Sage on a développé une sorte de vocabulaire "passif-agressif" pour dire aux autres de se sortir les doigts du cul et de se mettre a coder :-P Nathann -- You received this message becaus

Re: [sage-devel] detecting doctests

On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 06:41:54PM +0200, Vincent Delecroix wrote: > Thanks for the pointer. It is clearly related to the first issue. For > the second one, do we want a custom solution to doctest > deprecated_alias? Actually, I would also would like a similar feature in > categories to test things

Re: [sage-devel] Re: a patchbot named eddy

Err... Sorry for the french message T_T Nathann -- 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...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, se

Re: [sage-devel] CategoryObject vs. Parent

On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 2:43 AM, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote: > On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 10:30:18PM -0700, Robert Bradshaw wrote: > > > Eric: > > > In the same vein, shouldn't base_ring be removed from Parent as well ? > > Yes indeed. > > > As Parents have Elements, this is also the root of operations

Re: [sage-devel] Re: a patchbot named eddy

On 12 May 2015 at 08:38, Nathann Cohen wrote: > Err... Sorry for the french message T_T pas de probleme, but in English we say "pardon my French" to apologise for using rude words. amicalement, John > > Nathann > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Referring to 'self' in the documentation

Dear Volker, Ooops, I let this thread drop out of my view ... sorry to get back to it so much later. >You don't specify self as part of the arguments when you call a method, >so its not part of the INPUT section. You shouldn't have to know about >the details of Python OOP just

Re: [sage-devel] Re: more links between functions/methods/modules

On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 08:46:05AM -0700, Ralf Stephan wrote: > Actually you can ref from the thematic tutorial back to the > reference manual, and there already are many (not enough!!!) > such links: > >Really. Is that ticket obsolete then: >http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/

[sage-devel] callgrind

Hello, has anyone recently had success with callgrind? With git develop I get File "/home/ralf/sage/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/IPython/core/application.py" , line 24, in from IPython.core import release, crashhandler File "/home/ralf/sage/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/IPython/

[sage-devel] Re: callgrind

HMmmm... Here it is slightly different: ~$ sage -callgrind ┌┐ │ SageMath Version 6.7.beta4, Release Date: 2015-05-05 │ │ Type "notebook()" for the browser-based notebook interface.│ │ Type "help()" for help.

[sage-devel] Is there an online index of the standard packages shipped in Sage?

Hello everybody, I am trying to 'clean' a bit some other part of Sage's documentation. I found that page, which lists 'some of' the programs shipped in Sage: http://www.sagemath.org/doc/installation/introduction.html It is not very clearly presented, nor probably very updated. Plus we c

[sage-devel] Re: callgrind

this is now http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/18404 On Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 11:29:42 AM UTC+2, Nathann Cohen wrote: > > HMmmm... Here it is slightly different: > > ~$ sage -callgrind > ┌┐ > │ SageMath Version 6.7.beta4, Release

[sage-devel] Re: Is there an online index of the standard packages shipped in Sage?

Nathann Cohen wrote: > Hello everybody, > > I am trying to 'clean' a bit some other part of Sage's documentation. > I found that page, which lists 'some of' the programs shipped in Sage: > > http://www.sagemath.org/doc/installation/introduction.html > > It is not very clearly presented,

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Is there an online index of the standard packages shipped in Sage?

Yo ! > There's also this dead(?) wiki page: > > http://wiki.sagemath.org/standard_packages_available_for_SAGE > > And this one I kept updating for a while (quite some time ago): > > http://wiki.sagemath.org/Sage_Spkg_Tracking Fine. Seems to confirm that we need something more reliable somewhere.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Referring to 'self' in the documentation

On Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 10:29:49 AM UTC+2, Nicolas M. Thiéry wrote: > > > Do not include the `self` parameter in the ``Args`` section. > As every programming rule, I take it as "don't do it, unless you > master the rationale and potential consequences, and have a better > reason to

[sage-devel] Re: callgrind

Wow cool ! THanks ! ;-) Nathann On Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 12:42:47 PM UTC+2, Volker Braun wrote: > > this is now http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/18404 > > On Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 11:29:42 AM UTC+2, Nathann Cohen wrote: >> >> HMmmm... Here it is slightly different: >> >> ~$ sage -callgrind >

[sage-devel] Re: Use mirrors

bump On Saturday, May 9, 2015 at 12:34:01 PM UTC+2, Volker Braun wrote: > > As the centrally hosted sage download link at UW is going away, we need to > use the mirrors for third-party packages soon. Bonus: faster downloads. > > Please review http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/15642 > > This will r

[sage-devel] Re: max(sin(x),cos(x)) = sin(x)

Nathann Cohen wrote: > Okay, so what do we do with this bug? It's not a bug, it's a feature. (Sadly, though.) > 1) make Sage's default 'max' be 'max_symbolic' (yes/no) In principle yes, if writing __builtin__.max wasn't that ugly and tedious. > 2) Return "Unknown" instead of False in the __b

[sage-devel] Re: Is there an online index of the standard packages shipped in Sage?

Nathann Cohen wrote: >> There's also this dead(?) wiki page: >> >> http://wiki.sagemath.org/standard_packages_available_for_SAGE >> >> And this one I kept updating for a while (quite some time ago): >> >> http://wiki.sagemath.org/Sage_Spkg_Tracking > > Fine. Seems to confirm that we need something

[sage-devel] Re: Referring to 'self' in the documentation

Volker Braun wrote: > On Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 10:29:49 AM UTC+2, Nicolas M. Thiéry wrote: > > > Do not include the `self` parameter in the ``Args`` section. > As every programming rule, I take it as "don't do it, unless you > master the rationale and potential consequences

[sage-devel] Re: max(sin(x),cos(x)) = sin(x)

> Okay, so what do we do with this bug? > >> >> I think Nils explained the situation pretty well. Making max/min be "mathematical" would definitely require some nontrivial effort. I don't know that I'm in favor of adding a third boolean option, though of course Maxima has various outcomes f

[sage-devel] Re: Use mirrors

> > > I'm surprised that there wouldn't be any US institution willing to > > host a mirror. > > > > There is a mirror at MIT, both http and rsync: > > > > http://mirrors.mit.edu/sage/ > > rsync://mirrors.mit.edu/sage > > ... which raises the question whether there's also a p

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Is there an online index of the standard packages shipped in Sage?

> That's perhaps a bit problematic at the moment; also, at least some > tests may require internet access (although we could tag them > accordingly). Should we document/test their versions as well? Technically, the list of standard packages is available in Sage directly (build/install). Maybe we

Re: [sage-devel] Re: max(sin(x),cos(x)) = sin(x)

> I think Nils explained the situation pretty well. Making max/min be > "mathematical" would definitely require some nontrivial effort. Why? 'max_symbolic' and 'min_symbolic' already do the job, don't they? > I don't > know that I'm in favor of adding a third boolean option, http://www.sagemat

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Is there an online index of the standard packages shipped in Sage?

IMHO: * The package type (standard/optional/experimental) should be in a file inside the package directory * The build system should check that it builds only standard packages * Old-style spkgs shouldn't be mashed together with new-style packages, that is super confusing if you have both. * Ins

Re: [sage-devel] Is there an online index of the standard packages shipped in Sage?

Hi, on-line, you can get the list of new-style spkgs at http://git.sagemath.org/sage.git/tree/build/pkgs The standard ones should be the ones listed at: http://git.sagemath.org/sage.git/tree/COPYING.txt Or, with more preparsing (so less good for a direct link), at: http://git.sagemath.org/sage.g

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Is there an online index of the standard packages shipped in Sage?

Hi, On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 07:19:07AM -0700, Volker Braun wrote: > IMHO: > > * The package type (standard/optional/experimental) should be in a file > inside the package directory +1. Actually, i have a prototype of this for the purpose of checking to the upstream website if a newerver version

[sage-devel] Do doctests pass for you with --optional=all misc/pacakge.py ?

Hello everybody ! Those doctests do not pass on my computer, and it seems to have been broken for a while.. Can somebody try it ? O_o sage -t --optional=all package.py #18407 fixes it on my computer, though O_o Nathann -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the

[sage-devel] Re: Use mirrors

kcrisman wrote: > > I'm surprised that there wouldn't be any US institution > willing to > > host a mirror. > > > > There is a mirror at MIT, both http and rsync: > > > > http://mirrors.mit.edu/sage/ > > rsync://mirrors.mit.edu/sage

[sage-devel] Re: Is there an online index of the standard packages shipped in Sage?

Thierry wrote: > [snip] > > The problem with pages under http://www.sagemath.org/packages is that > they are not up-to-date and there is a conflict with the old-style > versions and the new-style one, for example, if you type :: > > sage -standard > > it relies on the page http://www.sagema

Re: [sage-devel] Re: max(sin(x),cos(x)) = sin(x)

>We cannot be satisfied with returning wrong answers in the meantime, however. I support Nathann's position. > Returning 'Unknown' instead of nonsense would be a good first step. I disagree. That Unknown class/object should not be comparable/convertible to True/False, especially if not

[sage-devel] Re: Is there an online index of the standard packages shipped in Sage?

libm4ri and libm4rie are two different libraries... On Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 8:36:38 PM UTC+2, leif wrote: > > Thierry wrote: > > [snip] > > > > The problem with pages under http://www.sagemath.org/packages is that > > they are not up-to-date and there is a conflict with the old-style >

[sage-devel] Re: Is there an online index of the standard packages shipped in Sage?

Volker Braun wrote: > libm4ri and libm4rie are two different libraries... Sure. But their "new-style" names are "m4ri" and "m4rie", hence 'sage --standard' lists the former ones as "not installed" (and doesn't mention the latter ones because they're not in 'spkg/standard/' on the servers). -lei

[sage-devel] Re: max(sin(x),cos(x)) = sin(x)

On Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 12:28:31 AM UTC-7, Nathann Cohen wrote: > > 2) Return "Unknown" instead of False in the __bool__ function od symbolic > comparisons (yes/no) > I'd expect that not to be an option. I expect that `__bool__` can only return True or False. You could raise an exception, th

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Is there an online index of the standard packages shipped in Sage?

On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 08:36:24PM +0200, leif wrote: [...] > "Old-style" spkgs have their raison d'ętre (namely, they're > self-contained); in the long run, we may deprecate them, but we should > at least keep support for installing such (e.g. ones offered elsewhere). Of course, since this is th

[sage-devel] Re: Referring to 'self' in the documentation

Hi Nicolas and Volker, On 2015-05-12, Volker Braun wrote: > On Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 10:29:49 AM UTC+2, Nicolas M. Thiéry wrote: >> >> > Do not include the `self` parameter in the ``Args`` section. >> As every programming rule, I take it as "don't do it, unless you >> master the rat

[sage-devel] Re: max(sin(x),cos(x)) = sin(x)

Relevant ticket with some links: http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/17700 -- 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...@googlegroups.com. To

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Referring to 'self' in the documentation

On Tue, 12 May 2015, Simon King wrote: - - sometimes one needs to formulate preconditions that self needs to provide, or one needs to fix a notation involving self. I believe that preconditions should be formulated in an ASSUMPTIONS section, and notations should belong to an ALGORITHM or THEOR