Opened 11 years ago
Closed 11 years ago
#3485 closed defect (fixed)
[with patch, positive review] new sage_input function gives a sequence of commands to reproduce sage values
Reported by: | cwitty | Owned by: | cwitty |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | major | Milestone: | sage-3.1 |
Component: | misc | Keywords: | editor_mabshoff |
Cc: | ncalexan, wstein | Merged in: | |
Authors: | Reviewers: | ||
Report Upstream: | Work issues: | ||
Branch: | Commit: | ||
Dependencies: | Stopgaps: |
Description (last modified by )
This patch creates a new sage_input function, that does things like this:
sage: sage_input((polygen(GF(3))+1)^4) R.<x> = GF(3)[] x^4 + x^3 + x + 1
sage_input is implemented for only a few types; but I picked "complicated" types, so I think the underlying framework is ready to go. Once this patch has been accepted, I plan to go through and add support for many more types.
This patch depends on #3484.
Attachments (3)
Change History (10)
Changed 11 years ago by
Changed 11 years ago by
comment:1 Changed 11 years ago by
- Description modified (diff)
- Summary changed from [with patch, request comments, not ready for review] new sage_input function gives a sequence of commands to reproduce sage values to [with patch, needs review] new sage_input function gives a sequence of commands to reproduce sage values
comment:2 Changed 11 years ago by
- Keywords editor_mabshoff added
comment:3 Changed 11 years ago by
- Summary changed from [with patch, needs review] new sage_input function gives a sequence of commands to reproduce sage values to [with patch, positive review] new sage_input function gives a sequence of commands to reproduce sage values
REFEREE REPORT:
- My god, this is some of the most beautiful and well documented systematic code I've ever soon. I have no problems with any of it. Damn. Positive review.
comment:4 Changed 11 years ago by
- Milestone changed from sage-3.1.1 to sage-3.1
comment:5 Changed 11 years ago by
There is some slight problem applying this:
sage-3.1.alpha2/devel/sage$ patch -p1 --dry-run < trac_3485-sage_input-v2.patch patching file sage/misc/all.py Hunk #1 succeeded at 65 (offset 2 lines). patching file sage/misc/sage_input.py patching file sage/rings/integer.pyx Hunk #1 succeeded at 2943 (offset 16 lines). patching file sage/rings/integer_mod.pyx patching file sage/rings/integer_ring.pyx Hunk #1 succeeded at 823 with fuzz 2 (offset 8 lines). patching file sage/rings/polynomial/polynomial_element.pyx patching file sage/rings/polynomial/polynomial_ring.py Hunk #1 succeeded at 392 with fuzz 2 (offset 17 lines). patching file sage/rings/real_mpfr.pyx Hunk #1 succeeded at 280 (offset 12 lines). Hunk #2 succeeded at 966 (offset 16 lines). patching file sage/rings/ring.pyx Hunk #1 FAILED at 1505. 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file sage/rings/ring.pyx.rej
It also seems that only trac3485-sage_input-v2.patch should be applied.
Thoughts?
Cheers,
Michael
comment:6 Changed 11 years ago by
Yes, only apply -v2.patch.
The patch to ring.pyx only adds a new method, so it should be easy to apply by hand. But if you don't want to do that, I can rebase the patch against alpha1 tonight.
Changed 11 years ago by
comment:7 Changed 11 years ago by
- Resolution set to fixed
- Status changed from new to closed
Merged trac3485-sage_input-v2.patch and trac3485-sage_input-review-response.patch in Sage 3.1.alpha2
I will ping somebody to review this patch and #3484 soon.
Cheers,
Michael