On Nov 19, 2010, at 9:50 AM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
> Le 19/11/2010 16:39, Phil Steitz a écrit :
>> On 11/19/10 8:52 AM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
>>> Le 17/11/2010 21:08, sebb a écrit :
On 17 November 2010 19:53, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
> Le 17/11/2010 13:48, Phil Steitz a écrit :
>> On
Le 19/11/2010 16:39, Phil Steitz a écrit :
> On 11/19/10 8:52 AM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
>> Le 17/11/2010 21:08, sebb a écrit :
>>> On 17 November 2010 19:53, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
Le 17/11/2010 13:48, Phil Steitz a écrit :
> On 11/16/10 7:10 PM, Gilles Sadowski wrote:
> [...]
>>
On 11/19/10 8:52 AM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
Le 17/11/2010 21:08, sebb a écrit :
On 17 November 2010 19:53, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
Le 17/11/2010 13:48, Phil Steitz a écrit :
On 11/16/10 7:10 PM, Gilles Sadowski wrote:
[...]
I think this transition is the smoother path for our users. Do you
think
Le 17/11/2010 21:08, sebb a écrit :
> On 17 November 2010 19:53, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
>> Le 17/11/2010 13:48, Phil Steitz a écrit :
>>> On 11/16/10 7:10 PM, Gilles Sadowski wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> I think this transition is the smoother path for our users. Do you
>>> think
>>> this ch
On 17 November 2010 19:53, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
> Le 17/11/2010 13:48, Phil Steitz a écrit :
>> On 11/16/10 7:10 PM, Gilles Sadowski wrote:
>> [...]
>> I think this transition is the smoother path for our users. Do you
>> think
>> this change is the way to go ?
>
> -0
Le 17/11/2010 13:48, Phil Steitz a écrit :
> On 11/16/10 7:10 PM, Gilles Sadowski wrote:
> [...]
> I think this transition is the smoother path for our users. Do you
> think
> this change is the way to go ?
-0
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
My first impression is that it is a lo
Hi.
> > [...]
>
> I think what Luc is suggesting is that by introducing
> MathUserException in 2.2 without a material compatibility break
> (i.e. nothing that would actually break any 2.1 code) we could set
> users to start doing this work incrementally before 3.0 is released.
> That seems like a
On 11/16/10 7:10 PM, Gilles Sadowski wrote:
[...]
I think this transition is the smoother path for our users. Do you think
this change is the way to go ?
-0
+1
My first impression is that it is a lot of changes for 2.2 without any
benefit when users will switch to 3.0; they will still have
> >> [...]
> >> I think this transition is the smoother path for our users. Do you think
> >> this change is the way to go ?
> >
> > -0
>
> +1
>
> >
> > My first impression is that it is a lot of changes for 2.2 without any
> > benefit when users will switch to 3.0; they will still have to scan t
On 16 November 2010 23:19, Gilles Sadowski wrote:
> Hello.
>
>> As we are changing a lot of things in 3.0, it would be interesting to
>> have 2.2 help users smoothly adapt their code. Many exceptions have/will
>> be changed and some of them are used in public interfaces users have to
>> implement.
Hello.
> As we are changing a lot of things in 3.0, it would be interesting to
> have 2.2 help users smoothly adapt their code. Many exceptions have/will
> be changed and some of them are used in public interfaces users have to
> implement. Typical examples are FirstOrderDifferentialEquations and
Hello all,
As we are changing a lot of things in 3.0, it would be interesting to
have 2.2 help users smoothly adapt their code. Many exceptions have/will
be changed and some of them are used in public interfaces users have to
implement. Typical examples are FirstOrderDifferentialEquations and the
12 matches
Mail list logo
