Opened 10 years ago
Closed 10 years ago
#11230 closed enhancement (fixed)
Define our own PariOUT
Reported by: | jdemeyer | Owned by: | was |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | minor | Milestone: | sage-4.7.1 |
Component: | interfaces | Keywords: | pari |
Cc: | Merged in: | sage-4.7.1.alpha0 | |
Authors: | Jeroen Demeyer | Reviewers: | Robert Bradshaw, John Cremona |
Report Upstream: | N/A | Work issues: | |
Branch: | Commit: | ||
Dependencies: | Stopgaps: |
Description
Instead of changing defaultOut
in sage/libs/pari/gen.pyx
, we should instead define our own PariOUT
structure and use that.
Attachments (1)
Change History (10)
Changed 10 years ago by
comment:1 Changed 10 years ago by
- Status changed from new to needs_review
comment:2 follow-up: ↓ 3 Changed 10 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_review to positive_review
comment:3 in reply to: ↑ 2 Changed 10 years ago by
- Reviewers set to Robert Bradshaw
Replying to robertwb:
LGTM, pending adding the trac number to the ticket description.
This is no longer necessary (see http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel/browse_thread/thread/f5a9c012f6299a9e/a3c2af4a7700bca3)
Why in the world did we define
__x
to doctypedef __x pariout_t
?
I didn't write that code, but probably to work around some limitation/bug in an earlier version of Cython?
comment:4 follow-up: ↓ 5 Changed 10 years ago by
- Status changed from positive_review to needs_info
I know this has a positive review from the omnipotent testbot, but when I apply this to a freshly-rolled 4.7.alpha5 and do a full test I get two failures in sage/misc/sagedoc.py:
File "/home/jec/sage-4.7.alpha5.pari/devel/sage-main/sage/misc/sagedoc.py", line 874: sage: len(search_doc('tree', interact=False).splitlines()) > 2500 # long time Expected: True Got: False ********************************************************************** File "/home/jec/sage-4.7.alpha5.pari/devel/sage-main/sage/misc/sagedoc.py", line 489: sage: 'abvar/homology' in _search_src_or_doc('doc', 'homology', 'variety', interact=False) Expected: True Got: False
I built Sage with "make build" rather than "make", in case that is relevant. Meanwhile I switched the tag to "needs info" but will continue with this applied and go on to #11130.
comment:5 in reply to: ↑ 4 ; follow-up: ↓ 6 Changed 10 years ago by
Replying to cremona:
I built Sage with "make build" rather than "make", in case that is relevant.
Probably it is, because the doctest failures you mention are related to the documentation. So I would guess that make doc-html
would solve those problems.
comment:6 in reply to: ↑ 5 ; follow-up: ↓ 7 Changed 10 years ago by
Replying to jdemeyer:
Replying to cremona:
I built Sage with "make build" rather than "make", in case that is relevant.
Probably it is, because the doctest failures you mention are related to the documentation. So I would guess that
make doc-html
would solve those problems.
I guessed so, so am about to try again after sage -docbuild all html has finished...
comment:7 in reply to: ↑ 6 Changed 10 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_info to needs_review
Replying to cremona:
Replying to jdemeyer:
Replying to cremona:
I built Sage with "make build" rather than "make", in case that is relevant.
Probably it is, because the doctest failures you mention are related to the documentation. So I would guess that
make doc-html
would solve those problems.I guessed so, so am about to try again after sage -docbuild all html has finished...
As expected, the problem went away. I suppose it was silly to base the full test on devel/sage and not devel/sage/sage given that I had not built the docs.
comment:8 Changed 10 years ago by
- Reviewers changed from Robert Bradshaw to Robert Bradshaw, John Cremona
- Status changed from needs_review to positive_review
comment:9 Changed 10 years ago by
- Merged in set to sage-4.7.1.alpha0
- Resolution set to fixed
- Status changed from positive_review to closed
LGTM, pending adding the trac number to the ticket description.
Why in the world did we define
__x
to doctypedef __x pariout_t
?