Hi Jonathan,
Could you be more precise with what you mean with "projection"?
What is the status quo? (Please provide a minimal reproducible working
example that shows the contrast along with the proposed wished change that
you have in mind, otherwise we are left to guess what you mean and that
Let me try again. This is the current behaviour:
sage: P = Polyhedron(vertices=[[-1,0],[1,0]],lines=[[0,1]]); P
A 2-dimensional polyhedron in QQ^2 defined as the convex hull of 2 vertices
and 1 line
sage: P.vertex_graph()
Graph on 2 vertices
sage: P.faces(0)
()
Let P be a polyhedron defined by v
On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 12:38 PM Frédéric Chapoton wrote:
>
> The bug over the cyclotomic field is caused by
>
>
> sage: K = CyclotomicField(8)
> sage: K(-1/16) > 0
> True
>
This is not a bug, as the ordering of K has nothing to do with the ordering on
the real elements of K.
Note that
sage: K(-
t
On Sat, Oct 19, 2019 at 1:59 PM 'Jonathan Kliem' via sage-devel
wrote:
>
> Let me try again. This is the current behaviour:
>
> sage: P = Polyhedron(vertices=[[-1,0],[1,0]],lines=[[0,1]]); P
> A 2-dimensional polyhedron in QQ^2 defined as the convex hull of 2 vertices
> and 1 line
> sage: P.ve
Here is a doctest from sage/rings/integer.pyx:
sage: Integer('012')
doctest:...: DeprecationWarning: use 0o as octal prefix instead of 0
If you do not want this number to be interpreted as octal, remove
the leading zeros.
See http://trac.sagemath.org/17413 for deta
The reason that the warning isn't printed is that the stacklevel is set to
4 by default in order to tell the user where the Integer('012') is
occurring. When you type '012' directly into the command line, the stack
isn't deep enough and no warning is printed. You do see a warning if you
write a f
Okay, that makes sense. I thought I had seen deprecation warnings from
basic commands issued at the "sage:" prompt, but I must be misremembering.
John
On Saturday, October 19, 2019 at 1:20:15 PM UTC-7, David Roe wrote:
>
> The reason that the warning isn't printed is that the stacklevel is se
