Re: [sage-devel] trouble installing sage

I usually ignore any posts about trouble with installing Sage on Macs, I just pat my trusty linux laptop and move on. But for some reason I have been reading the saga of Anne's recent experience (and happy ending!) and I think it is an example of how well sage-devel / sage-support can work:

Re: [sage-devel] Re: [debian-science] Modularized sagemath packages: proof of concept

If this is the case then the brial related PR ought to come after the sagemath-objects and -categories stuff PR. (Or maybe more than one PR). It would be easier for reviewers, and moreover easier to find reviewers. On 27 September 2024 21:34:09 BST, Matthias Koeppe wrote: >On Friday, Septem

Re: [sage-devel] Re: [debian-science] Modularized sagemath packages: proof of concept

I don't understand this PR. The diagram you link to indicates that sagemath-categories is almost at the bottom, whereas sagemath-symbolics is almost at the top of the hierarchy that you propose. However, the PR includes a file src/sage/calculus/all__sagemath_categories.py

[sage-devel] Re: [debian-science] Modularized sagemath packages: proof of concept

On Monday, August 26, 2024 at 9:55:38 PM UTC-7 Kwankyu Lee wrote: That is an encouraging news. To speed up the process, we have to pass https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/37900 https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/37901 Actually, the next step is to merge https://github.com/sagemath/sage/

Re: [sage-devel] Re: [debian-science] Modularized sagemath packages: proof of concept

This PR bundles together totally unrelated things. What do sagemath-objects and sagemath-categories have to do with demoting brial to optional? Dima On 27 September 2024 20:22:32 BST, Matthias Koeppe wrote: >On Monday, August 26, 2024 at 9:55:38 PM UTC-7 Kwankyu Lee wrote: > >That is an encou

Re: [sage-devel] Re: [debian-science] Modularized sagemath packages: proof of concept

On Friday, September 27, 2024 at 1:02:50 PM UTC-7 Dima Pasechnik wrote: This PR bundles together totally unrelated things. No, it does not. What do sagemath-objects and sagemath-categories have to do with demoting brial to optional? *sagemath-objects* and *sagemath-categories *are basic di

Re: [sage-devel] Re: [debian-science] Modularized sagemath packages: proof of concept

I don't see why `simplify` should be in something named `sagemath_categories`. How is it decided whether a function should be a function in `Sage categories, basic rings, polynomials, functions`? Martin On Saturday 28 September 2024 at 04:02:26 UTC+2 Matthias Koeppe wrote: > On Friday, Septemb

Re: [sage-devel] Re: [debian-science] Modularized sagemath packages: proof of concept

On Saturday, September 28, 2024 at 6:25:07 AM UTC+9 axio...@yahoo.de wrote: ... All of these are then imported by src/sage/all__sagemath_categories.py I don't think that I understand the purpose of sagemath_categories. Do you know the purpose of files like `all__xxx`? The purpose of these file

Re: [sage-devel] Re: [debian-science] Modularized sagemath packages: proof of concept

Everyone here, According to the recent survey, people complain lengthy technical discussions happening in sage-devel, that many of them find irrelevant to their interests. If a thread in sage-devel involves a technical discussion, how about opening a new Discussion in https://github.com/sagem

Re: [sage-devel] Re: [debian-science] Modularized sagemath packages: proof of concept

Just to add that the PR as it is now changes over 100 files, and about 2000 lines of code. And it goes about 4 different topics. Thanks, Martin, for taking time looking into it. It seems that it puts about 50% or more of Sage into sagemath-categories, cause it includes SR (with calculus), poly

Re: [sage-devel] Re: [debian-science] Modularized sagemath packages: proof of concept

On Friday, September 27, 2024 at 2:25:07 PM UTC-7 axio...@yahoo.de wrote: The diagram you link to indicates that sagemath-categories is almost at the bottom, whereas sagemath-symbolics is almost at the top of the hierarchy that you propose. That's right. However, the PR includes a file s

Re: [sage-devel] Re: [debian-science] Modularized sagemath packages: proof of concept

On Friday, September 27, 2024 at 2:41:21 PM UTC-7 Dima Pasechnik wrote: If this is the case then the brial related PR ought to come after the sagemath-objects and -categories stuff PR. (Or maybe more than one PR). No, the PR has a suitable scope, and it has already been reviewed. -- You recei

Re: [sage-devel] Re: [debian-science] Modularized sagemath packages: proof of concept

On Friday, September 27, 2024 at 7:02:17 PM UTC-7 Dima Pasechnik wrote: It seems that it puts about 50% or more of Sage into sagemath-categories, cause it includes SR (with calculus), polynomial rings, etc. One may ask whether it's worthwhile to have at all in this form. No, SR is not in *sage

Re: [sage-devel] Re: [debian-science] Modularized sagemath packages: proof of concept

I think that "technical discussion" refers to "discussion about a technical detail". However, this PR introduces a new kind of file, `all__sagemath_categories.py`, into (almost?) *every* subdirectory of src. Thus, it seems to me that this affects almost all developers - after all these files

[sage-devel] view command

Dear All, I see that there were some problems recently with the view command which seem to have been fixed. However, compared to older versions of SageMath, there still seems to be some odd behaviors. For example, the commands sage: B = crystals.Tableaux(['A',2],shape=[1]) sage: view(B) produc