Mike Hansen wrote:
> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 12:19 PM, Jaap Spies wrote:
>> Another Python builtin is pow(), but how is it possible that
>> type(pow(2,9,11)) returns
>>
>>
>> Or am I mistaken?
>
> The pow() builtin just calls __pow__ on the first argument in that
> case, which we control so we c
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 12:23 PM, Mike Hansen wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 12:19 PM, Jaap Spies wrote:
>> Another Python builtin is pow(), but how is it possible that
>> type(pow(2,9,11)) returns
>>
>>
>> Or am I mistaken?
>
> The pow() builtin just calls __pow__ on the first argument in th
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 12:19 PM, Jaap Spies wrote:
> Another Python builtin is pow(), but how is it possible that
> type(pow(2,9,11)) returns
>
>
> Or am I mistaken?
The pow() builtin just calls __pow__ on the first argument in that
case, which we control so we can return one of our types. len
Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On May 4, 2009, at 10:45 AM, kcrisman wrote:
> len() is a Python builtin, which is a good indication that it will
> return Python types (especially when acting on a Python type). In
> fact, there's no way on the c-api level to return a Sage integer, as
> len() alway
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 11:13 AM, kcrisman wrote:
>
>> >>> I assume this is known, but I am wondering whether it should be
>> >>> treated as a bug,
>>
>> >> This is not a bug. It's a stupid design decision in Python, which we
>
> Right, I knew that Python ints behaved this way, I was just surpris
> >>> I assume this is known, but I am wondering whether it should be
> >>> treated as a bug,
>
> >> This is not a bug. It's a stupid design decision in Python, which we
Right, I knew that Python ints behaved this way, I was just surprised
that somehow in Sage / didn't change this - I guess it's
On May 4, 11:01 am, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
> On May 4, 2009, at 10:53 AM, William Stein wrote:
> Good point, I hadn't though about that. We could introduce a size()
> or cardinality() method that returns an Integer, or possibly infinity.
Combinat already uses cardinality() since they need
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 11:01 AM, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
>
> On May 4, 2009, at 10:53 AM, William Stein wrote:
>
>> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 10:45 AM, kcrisman wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear support,
>>>
>>> I assume this is known, but I am wondering whether it should be
>>> treated as a bug,
>>
>> This is no
On May 4, 2009, at 10:53 AM, William Stein wrote:
> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 10:45 AM, kcrisman wrote:
>>
>> Dear support,
>>
>> I assume this is known, but I am wondering whether it should be
>> treated as a bug,
>
> This is not a bug. It's a stupid design decision in Python, which we
> have to
On May 4, 2009, at 10:45 AM, kcrisman wrote:
> Dear support,
>
> I assume this is known, but I am wondering whether it should be
> treated as a bug, or whether someone using len() on lists should be
> assumed to know it might then be operated on with Python /, not
> Sage /, as opposed to the prep
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 10:45 AM, kcrisman wrote:
>
> Dear support,
>
> I assume this is known, but I am wondering whether it should be
> treated as a bug,
This is not a bug. It's a stupid design decision in Python, which we
have to live with until we switch to Python 3.0 or switch to doing
"fro
11 matches
Mail list logo
