Re: [sage-devel] A couple R tickets need review.

Note that we don't disable https support, we just let R compile it is not available... -- 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...@goog

Re: [sage-devel] python3 status

On 2017-10-14 11:50, John Cremona wrote: How can we be sure that new code witten by people (like me) who are not python2/3 experts does not regress? I think it's also important to mention that Cython is quite different from plain Python in this regard. Cython generally tries to be compatible

[sage-devel] VOTE: inclusion of OpenSSL in Sage

Following numerous discussions on this list an various tickets, the issue of maintaining Sage-specific patches to various components of Sage emerged again about the proposed upgrade of R to 3.4.2 (discussed here

[sage-devel] Re: VOTE: inclusion of OpenSSL in Sage

[ The first post started too fast... Sorry for the interruption ! ] Following numerous discussions on this list and various Trac tickets*, the issue of maintaining Sage-specific patches to various components of Sage emerged again about the proposed upgrade

Re: [sage-devel] A couple R tickets need review.

Indeed. I don't dispute that. But the "security" point made by William, and the fact that upstream *wants* https-enabled communications stands. BTW, it also stands for "our" Python... -- Emmanuel Charpentier Le lundi 16 octobre 2017 10:34:28 UTC+2, Jean-Pierre Flori a écrit : > > Note that we

[sage-devel] How do I overwrite comparison for modules?

Hi all, I want to redefine comparison for modules by using python like comparisons __eq__, __lt__ etc. See #23978 https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/23978 So I have deleted the __richcmp__ methods and added a method def __eq__(self, other): return type(self) == type(other) I get the

Re: [sage-devel] How do I overwrite comparison for modules?

Remove the @richcmp_method decorator. -- 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, send email to

Re: [sage-devel] How do I overwrite comparison for modules?

It works. Thank you :-). On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 2:28:00 PM UTC+2, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > > Remove the @richcmp_method decorator. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails

Re: [sage-devel] Re: VOTE: inclusion of OpenSSL in Sage

On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Emmanuel Charpentier wrote: > In short, we have two options : include OpenSSL now (using language > clarification), or wait for the complete OpenSSL relicensing. The exact > terms of the vote are therefore : > > |X| Yes, we should fully support OpenSSL now, and cl

Re: [sage-devel] python3 status

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 5:56 PM, Frédéric Chapoton wrote: > Hello, > > I have reached this point with the ugly python3 experimental branch > "public/python3-experiment-8.1.b7": > > > ┌┐ > │ SageMath version 8.1.beta7, Release Date

[sage-devel] Re: VOTE: inclusion of OpenSSL in Sage

On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 11:08:52 AM UTC+1, Emmanuel Charpentier wrote: > > [ The first post started too fast... Sorry for the interruption ! ] > > Following numerous discussions on this list and various Trac tickets*, the > issue of maintaining Sage-specific patches to various components

Re: [sage-devel] Re: VOTE: inclusion of OpenSSL in Sage

|X| Yes, we should fully support OpenSSL now, and clarify the licensing issue. On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 8:22 AM Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > > On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 11:08:52 AM UTC+1, Emmanuel Charpentier > wrote: > >> [ The first post started too fast... Sorry for the interruption ! ] >> >

Re: [sage-devel] Re: VOTE: inclusion of OpenSSL in Sage

|X| Yes, we should fully support OpenSSL now, and clarify the licensing issue. -- 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

Re: [sage-devel] How do I overwrite comparison for modules?

Now the question is why are you doing this? You have rich comparison behavior (i.e., a partial order) by allowing a return value of NotImplemented. So I do not understand why you would do this because it comes with a lot of boilerplate code and documentation unless you want to remove all use of

[sage-devel] What does MPolynomial_libsingular.reduce() do?

Hi everyone, Here's a Sage session: sage: A. = QQ[] sage: (x+y).reduce([(x-y), (x+y)]) 0 sage: (x-y).reduce([(x-y), (x+y)]) -2*y The docstring says reduce computes "the normal form of self w.r.t. I, i.e. [...] the remainder of this polynomial with respect to the polynomials i

Re: [sage-devel] Re: VOTE: inclusion of OpenSSL in Sage

|X| Yes, we should fully support OpenSSL now, and clarify the licensing issue. -- 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.

Re: [sage-devel] What does MPolynomial_libsingular.reduce() do?

On 2017-10-16 18:41, Luca De Feo wrote: > Here's a Sage session: > > sage: A. = QQ[] > sage: (x+y).reduce([(x-y), (x+y)]) > 0 > sage: (x-y).reduce([(x-y), (x+y)]) > -2*y > > The docstring says reduce computes "the normal form of self w.r.t. I, > i.e. [...] the remainder of thi

Re: [sage-devel] What does MPolynomial_libsingular.reduce() do?

Hi there, this is already documented: “ Return the normal form of self w.r.t. "I", i.e. return the remainder of this polynomial with respect to the polynomials in "I". If the polynomial set/list "I" is not a (strong) Groebner basis the result is not canonical. ” Cheers, Martin Daniel Kre

Re: [sage-devel] Re: VOTE: inclusion of OpenSSL in Sage

On 2017-10-16 12:08, Emmanuel Charpentier wrote: |_| Yes, we should fully support OpenSSL now, and clarify the licensing issue. What does "clarifying" the licensing issue even mean? The fact that OpenSSL is *in the process of* relicensing does not help us at the moment. And you don't

Re: [sage-devel] Re: VOTE: inclusion of OpenSSL in Sage

On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 11:07 AM Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > On 2017-10-16 12:08, Emmanuel Charpentier wrote: > > |_| Yes, we should fully support OpenSSL now, and clarify the > > licensing issue. > > What does "clarifying" the licensing issue even mean? The fact that > OpenSSL is *in the pro

Re: [sage-devel] What does MPolynomial_libsingular.reduce() do?

On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 7:35 PM, 'Martin R. Albrecht' via sage-devel wrote: > Hi there, > > this is already documented: > > “ Return the normal form of self w.r.t. "I", i.e. return the > remainder of this polynomial with respect to the polynomials in > "I". If the polynomial set/list "I" is no

Re: [sage-devel] Re: VOTE: inclusion of OpenSSL in Sage

by clarification I meant this: https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!msg/sage-devel/rhMrNK_2c24/GYHzsSd6BAAJ -- 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-de

[sage-devel] Re: VOTE: inclusion of OpenSSL in Sage

|X| Yes, we should fully support OpenSSL now, and clarify the licensing issue. -- 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...@googlegro

Re: [sage-devel] What does MPolynomial_libsingular.reduce() do?

> Can you tell from this documentation what the function will compute > prior to running it? I can't. > It takes I as the generators of the ideal and uses that as the reduction set. > > I agree with Daniel: this function does something useful and sensible > when I is an ideal, so it shouldn

Re: [sage-devel] Re: VOTE: inclusion of OpenSSL in Sage

So basically you want to add OpenSSL to Sage and then say "We know that distributing SageMath might be illegal, but it is unlikely that somebody will sue. Use at your own risk!" I doubt that this is such a good deal. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups