DaveWitteMorris

This issue should be closed. It disappeared sometime before sagemath 9.1, and a doctest is added in [trac ticket #32115](https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/32115). (On the other hand, the bug is still in ginsh...

Thanks for the bug report. Here is the underlying problem: ``` sage: K = PolynomialRing(QQ, 3, 'x,u,v', order=f'degrevlex(1),degrevlex(2)') sage: x = K('x') sage: Qx = PolynomialRing(QQ, "x") sage: Qx(x^2) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------...

Thanks for the report. It seems to me that the current behaviour of `subs` is unacceptable and qualifies as a bug. (The documentation says it "Substitutes given generators with given...

Yes, that would be great.

I was hit by this in 10.7.beta1: ``` sage -t --long --warn-long 30.0 --random-seed=291956772222324911267721970980651284263 src/sage/functions/exp_integral.py ... Expected nothing Got: exponential_integral_1(69.77687475569514313350031667350975301, 1)[0] with precision 127 has error of 4.1958818875993735 >= 4.0...

**Partial diagnosis.** The problem seems to be in `sage.misc.sageinspect.sage_getargspec`. It does not seem to realize that arguments can be keyword-only (and does not pick up their defaults). For example: ```...

I don't think this is a good first issue, because I think the fix is probably not straightforward, and will need to be done with care. Did you read these...

Probably the "Expected Behavior" that I suggested is not completely correct. I think `bounds` should be considered to be an aid to the algorithm, not a restriction on the output....

Thanks for fixing the bug! Please add "Fixes #38796" to the PR description (or just change the word "See" to "Fixes"), so the linked issue will close when this is...

I think you are probably right that the commit message will work (though I didn't realize that before). However, the PR does not show up in the "Development" sidebar of...