Activity
From 29 Jul 2014 to 27 Aug 2014
27 Aug 2014
-
18:40 Bug #104 (In Progress): Misprints suggestions: Z --> ZZ
-
- Some tests:
@ZZ@ is suggested when giving @ZZZ@, or @zz@, so it is indeed in the list.
Maybe the problem is just th... -
- fixed
-
-
-
-
-
01 Aug 2014
-
- the CoCoA-4 operator "::" is now in another specific issue.
For the time being I think that *ReadExpr* may be good e... -
-
- CoCoA-4 has the *@::@* operator which evaluated expressions in a given ring:...
-
- Everything for the release
finalize cvs
make
make doc
make ManExamples
in snapshot dir:
cd src/CoCoA-5/re... -
- Done, tested, documented
Different from the cocoa-4 version: more flexible (see manual) -
- Redesign CoCoA-4 function CheckArgTypes (for checking argument types, of course...)
31 Jul 2014
-
- Even though I had closed this issue saying:
> Even though CoCoAHelp.xml isn't all written like that (too dangerous t... -
- Duplicates #169: "Font for parameters in manual".
Design is all set there.
Closing this issue. -
- As said in another issue:
- parameters should have the same name as in <syntax>
- <syntax> should be moved before <... -
- Is the new approach in BuiltInFunctions good enough?
I think so: it is not a one-liner but it's very readable (look f... -
- Now all functions work. A proper clean-up and re-design is in another issue.
30 Jul 2014
-
- We are also working an efficient algorithm for implicitization.
Keep that in mind for this issue, or make a new issue. -
- There are many tools to deal with subalgebras (see @toric@ and @normaliz@), so it would make sense to design a nice i...
-
- Resumed package (slight design change, documented)
It will be imrpoved, but that's beyond this task scope.
-
- The function in CoCoA-5 is already done and called @RingSet@ (see manual) but I'm not happy with the name: should I c...
29 Jul 2014
-
- the error message was indeed a bit puzzling in some cases now it is:...
-
12:31 Design #403: Misuse of dot-dot operator
- Giulia's problem could be neatly resolved by allowing the following syntax *@L[2..4]@* to mean @[L[k] | k in 2..4]@. ...
-
- My main concern is the (possibly) unexpected behaviour illustrated in example *@(B)@* in comment 1. However, for a l...
-
- The main action taken was to clarify the manual entry for ".."; it is now quite clear, and even mentions Giulia's inc...
-
- I suggest to reject this issue.
@A..B@ works for A and B integers or indeterminates in the order of their definition... -
-
Also available in: Atom