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
write MPolynomial_libsingular over number fields #686
Comments
comment:3
Well, after a year. Here is the patch |
comment:4
What version of sage is this against? I can't apply it to sage-3.1.1. I fixed the one broken hunk and got this during the build?
Am I doing something dumb? Thanks. |
comment:5
My guess would be Sage 3.1.2.alpha2. A lot of fixes in that area went into 3.1.2.X:
There is a 3.1.2.alph2 binary for sage.math in the "usual place". Cheers, Michael |
comment:6
With the patch applied I see one doctest failure which is trivial to fix by making that doctest optional:
|
comment:7
Yes, I based it on 3.1.2.alpha2 since so much changed there since 3.1.1. I wonder why I missed the M2 failure. I'll fix that tomorrow. |
comment:8
Replying to @malb:
Maybe the -long played a role? Either way: should this get a positive review by William it is trivial for either one of us to fix the issue, so don't worry about it. Cheers, Michael |
Attachment: mpolynomial_libsingular_qqa.patch.gz |
comment:9
the attached patch fixes the M2 failure by making it optional |
comment:10
This applies to 3.1.3.alpha1 with one tiny reject in libs/singular/singular-cdefs.pxi which is easily fixed (it just removes the newline at the end of the file). I have two small objections, which are however too minor to keep this from being merged (hence the positive review):
|
comment:11
Replying to @aghitza:
The agreed upon spelling these days is Sage. The problem with malb's patch is that there is no TeX macro, so as is the documentation fails to build. But I will just add the Cheers, Michael |
comment:12
Replying to @aghitza:
As the coefficients are not atomic (e.g., a + 1) this doesn't seem too bad to me. Fixing this -- if one wanted to -- would require writing one's own print function instead of using Singular's.
Yep, I can provide a follow-up patch soon-ish to deal with those. |
comment:13
Hi malb, when I merge this patch the sr.py doctest goes from 650 to over 1100 seconds:
We do not seem to add any doctests to sr.py. Do you still want me to merge it? I also have #4021 and #4022 ready to merge, but since they depend on this patch I am holding off on your decision. Cheers, Michael |
comment:14
|
comment:15
Merged in Sage 3.1.3.alpha2 |
this requires writing a conversion route from/to number field elements to liBSINGULAR's native format.
Component: basic arithmetic
Issue created by migration from https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/686
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: