-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 568
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
Convert symbolic relations to/from SymPy #23990
Comments
New commits:
|
Commit: |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
|
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
|
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
|
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
comment:7
8.1.beta7 + #23990 passes ==> PS : You need to put your name in "Authors" PPS : Thank you very much ! Solving inequations is a domain where Sage and Maxima are currenty weak. This is a nice step in the right direction. |
Reviewer: Emmanuel Charpentier |
comment:8
Thanks! |
Author: Ralf Stephan |
comment:9
P.S. Don't forget to reinstall SymPy before compiling Sage. |
comment:10
Sorry, I forgot to increase the SymPy patchlevel, and the patch does no apply anyway. |
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
|
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1 and set ticket back to needs_review. New commits:
|
comment:15
Replying to @rwst:
Ah ! I thought that the reverse conversion (which I saw on the sympy site) was reserved for another Sage patch... |
comment:16
Is that the intended behaviour ? Or to you plan to overhaul a It is not obvious to me why (e. g.) Mathematic objects can be converted back to Sage objects via the (exposed) |
comment:17
Please don't forget to set back positive. |
comment:18
Replying to @rwst:
Indeed. No quarell here.
They are by definition Sage objects, but have no meaning for interacting with Sage "native" objects ; a conversion is needed for that.
I think that's almost what I was thinking about (syntax consistency rather than coding conventions). Note that the non-Sympy interfaces are not that consistent : compare, for example, interfaces to mathematica, giac, R, maple and fricas... Unifying them would represent a lot of work second-intention consistency is hard... Another reason was that, unless I'm mistaken, the docs I read when I was starting to learn Sage (about 2-3 years ago) recommended to "end users" to use only "exposed" methods, leaving the unexposed ones to internal Sage use. I certainly had this recommendation in mind when I asked my question. Has this recommendation changed ?
Of course ;-). And, BTW, this was only a question, not a criticism... |
comment:19
The problem is that you seem to want a way to know how to convert a Python object from a different namespace by asking for its methods. But Sage has no control over them because Python does not allow adding methods on-the-fly. It may be an idea to just provide a Sage global function |
comment:20
Replying to @rwst:
I'm a Python noob. I didn't know about |
Changed branch from u/rws/convert_symbolic_relations_to_from__sympy to |
Reversely in SymPy:
This functionality is needed both by #22322 and #23923. Needed is a fix to
SympyConverter
inexpression-conversions.pyx
The reverse patch in SymPy is added here, see the PR sympy/sympy#13420
CC: @mforets
Component: interfaces
Author: Ralf Stephan
Branch/Commit:
479e206
Reviewer: Emmanuel Charpentier
Issue created by migration from https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/23990
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: