Skip to content
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

Euler numbers revamp #17770

Closed
rwst opened this issue Feb 11, 2015 · 4 comments
Closed

Euler numbers revamp #17770

rwst opened this issue Feb 11, 2015 · 4 comments

Comments

@rwst
Copy link

rwst commented Feb 11, 2015

  • move euler_number from combinatorics to functions
  • replace pexpect-maxima with maxima-lib implementation
  • make GP/Pari the main version with euler(n)=subst(bernpol(2*n+1), 'x, 1/4)*4<sup>(2*n+1)*(-1)</sup>(n+1)/(2*n+1) (Charles R Greathouse IV)
  • mpmath has fp Euler numbers

Component: symbolics

Issue created by migration from https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/17770

@rwst rwst added this to the sage-6.5 milestone Feb 11, 2015
@jdemeyer
Copy link

comment:1

What you're proposing seems like 4 tickets, not 1 ticket...

@rwst
Copy link
Author

rwst commented Feb 11, 2015

comment:2

Replying to @jdemeyer:

What you're proposing seems like 4 tickets, not 1 ticket...

It's not substantially more than any other symbolic function ticket. Not that there is heavy use that would justify several tickets.

@jdemeyer
Copy link

comment:3

Replying to @rwst:

It's not substantially more than any other symbolic function ticket. Not that there is heavy use that would justify several tickets.

Neither of this matters. The question is: can the issue be easily and naturally be split up? If the answer to that is yes, it should be done.

I have just seen too often that a ticket does A, B, C and there are issues with C. These issues with C turn out to be much harder than originally thought. Therefore, A and B are never merged or merged with a big delay, even though they could have been merged quickly.

Note: personally I don't care much about this ticket, so if a reviewer doesn't mind, then it's obviously not a problem.

@rwst rwst removed this from the sage-6.5 milestone Feb 17, 2015
@rwst
Copy link
Author

rwst commented Jun 3, 2016

comment:5

See #20763

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants