Opened 8 years ago
Closed 8 years ago
#14106 closed defect (duplicate)
slicing p-adic elements
Reported by: | roed | Owned by: | roed |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | minor | Milestone: | sage-duplicate/invalid/wontfix |
Component: | padics | Keywords: | |
Cc: | saraedum | Merged in: | |
Authors: | Reviewers: | David Roe | |
Report Upstream: | N/A | Work issues: | |
Branch: | Commit: | ||
Dependencies: | Stopgaps: |
Description
sage: R = Zp(5,7) sage: a = R(300) sage: a 2*5^2 + 2*5^3 + O(5^9) sage: a[:5] 4*5^2 + O(5^5)
This results from the following:
sage: a.slice(None, 5, 1) # correct 2*5^2 + 2*5^3 + O(5^5) sage: a.slice(None, 5, None) # incorrect 4*5^2 + O(5^5)
Attachments (1)
Change History (8)
Changed 8 years ago by
comment:1 Changed 8 years ago by
- Cc saraedum added
- Status changed from new to needs_review
comment:2 Changed 8 years ago by
comment:3 Changed 8 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_review to needs_info
comment:4 Changed 8 years ago by
I added the doctest from this patch to #13299 which is waiting for review.
comment:5 Changed 8 years ago by
- Milestone changed from sage-5.9 to sage-duplicate/invalid/wontfix
- Status changed from needs_info to needs_review
This is a part of #13299 now.
comment:6 Changed 8 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_review to positive_review
comment:7 Changed 8 years ago by
- Resolution set to duplicate
- Reviewers set to David Roe
- Status changed from positive_review to closed
Note: See
TracTickets for help on using
tickets.
This is also done in #13299. (Which I should probably set to needs_review again). Should I make #13299 depend on #14106 or should we rather get #13299 into sage?