New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
ipython unnecessarily relies on sage-location #15100
Comments
comment:4
The "hack" you mention has nothing at all to do with |
comment:5
I don't fully understand. In which way does What else needs to be done in your opinion? |
comment:6
Replying to @sagetrac-felixs:
It has nothing to do with Perhaps you should explain why the "hack" in |
comment:7
Every hack should be removed. Expecially the ones that implement things that can be achieved easily without hacks. Hacks are often misleading and complicate issues. Getting rid of them needs more work, but this ticket is meant to just handle this particular case, I came across. The whole story is: a doctest checks the first line in |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
comment:8
Replying to @sagetrac-felixs:
Fine, go ahead and implement By special-casing |
comment:9
Replying to @sagetrac-felixs:
Sure, but even this doctest has nothing to do with |
comment:10
Replying to @jdemeyer:
This is one part of it. Tickets must be achievable.
I have fooled a bogus doctest. That's fine with me. What else do you suggest? |
Dependencies: #15146 |
comment:12
I still don't understand the point of this ticket. I think you should better explain what the problem is and why your patch fixes that problem. |
comment:13
(I agree that there are worse issues, but this one is particularly easy to fix.) |
comment:14
Depends what you mean. The path-rewriting is needed to be able to relocate the Sage install tree. Let me repeat this: By special-casing A proper fix for the "hack" would fix all Python scripts, not just this one. What's the point of this special case? |
comment:15
Replying to @jdemeyer:
What i mean is, there is no point in requiring the mechanism for
there's a proper doctest in #15146, that does not rely on a wrong ipython installation.
Yes.
I cannot fix all at once. But before the line has been merged, I will certainly not paste it into the other |
comment:16
Replying to @sagetrac-felixs:
You just gave a very good argument for keeping the I think you still need to explain what the problem is that this ticket is trying to fix, I really don't understand it. |
comment:17
Replying to @jdemeyer:
No, I'm trying to make Sage a sane place. Something like this takes time.
It doesn't do anything useful in most cases. If there were no doctest looking at ipython i wouldn't even have noticed. A hack should always be restricted to things that require it. This is pretty similar to the problem about static atlas libraries (#15045): Its always better to not break/complicate things for all users just because one CPU/platform is broken/limitied/buggy.
Here we go, a more formal argument. read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encapsulation_(object-oriented_programming). There is a file that takes care of the contents of a package ( |
comment:22
I think we can close this as duplicate (sort of) of #15146. |
Changed author from Felix Salfelder to none |
Reviewer: Jeroen Demeyer |
The interpreter line exchange for ipython should be done within spkg-install. The hack cannot be removed from sage-location otherwise.
Depends on #15146
CC: @jondo
Component: packages: standard
Branch/Commit: u/felixs/ipython @
9c37286
Reviewer: Jeroen Demeyer
Issue created by migration from https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/15100
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: