-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 449
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
make sage variables unique in maxima #8734
Comments
comment:1
Attachment: trac-8734-maxima-vars.patch.gz I haven't run doctests on everything, but this patch is a start, if one of you wants to take it from here. |
comment:2
I think there might also be another ticket about this somewhere... |
comment:3
Hi, it is also #8634 and there is a dicussion at sage-devel |
comment:5
This should fix #6882 |
comment:6
Replying to @jasongrout:
Well, or at least help with the solution, anyway. |
comment:9
This ticket may also fix #9538. |
comment:11
patch should be rebased, it fails to apply to Sage 5.11:
Paul |
Work Issues: rebase |
Branch: u/rws/ticket/8734 |
Reviewer: Ralf Stephan |
comment:14
Rebased on 6.2.beta3 Patch doesn't seem ready:
New commits:
|
Commit: |
comment:16
This fixes the errors in symbolic. More to come... |
Changed work issues from rebase to fix doctest problems |
Changed reviewer from Ralf Stephan to none |
Changed author from Jason Grout to Jason Grout, Ralf Stephan |
comment:52
Again, for me, all is positive review except the diffeq commit, and that only because I haven't had time to look carefully at it, not because I suspect any problems - it looks quite thorough. |
Changed dependencies from #15530 to none |
comment:54
Okay, I have a few questions about the ode changes. I assume the answer to all of them is "it would have been even messier any other way", but I just wanted to check.
|
comment:55
I didn't. So as long as you give the answers I expect, we are all set here. |
comment:56
Working from the bottom up ... Replying to @kcrisman:
This is now #16568. |
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
|
comment:58
Replying to @kcrisman:
It certainly was then because of specific examples. The removal of the code I think you mean makes no difference now, however.
With the above removal of superfluous code I don't see any different behaviour in the three functions |
comment:59
Again, I'm just confused because in |
comment:60
Passes all tests. |
comment:61
After studying this in detail, the reason why the last change makes no difference is the following: in In |
comment:62
Let's make it so, then. I was kind of suspecting there were extra |
comment:63
conflicts with #6882 |
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
|
Dependencies: #6882 |
Changed reviewer from Volker Braun, Paul Zimmerman, Karl-Dieter Crisman to Volker Braun, Paul Zimmermann, Karl-Dieter Crisman |
comment:67
Sorry, that one I definitely like the idea of and have reviewed many similar ones in the past, but just don't have the time currently to review much new functionality carefully. :( |
Changed branch from u/rws/ticket/8734-1 to |
This patch prepends a unique string, "SAGE_VAR", to each variable name in maxima, to avoid conflicts with existing variables in maxima.
Depends on #6882
CC: @williamstein @sagetrac-acleone @kcrisman @robert-marik @burcin @saliola
Component: interfaces
Author: Jason Grout, Ralf Stephan
Branch/Commit:
7a6696b
Reviewer: Volker Braun, Paul Zimmermann, Karl-Dieter Crisman
Issue created by migration from https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/8734
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: