Sheehan Olver
Sheehan Olver
I think testing `1.10.0` in addition to `1.10.10` is excessive. If a bug is ever triggered only in `1.10.0` it's not a good use of anyones time to fix it.
I agree that in theory we should be testing v1.6.x right now. But one can argue if a version of Julia is no longer supported then there shouldn't be an...
can this be closed?
I'm running the test again. But it's almost certainly unrelated to the changes here. @MikaelSlevinsky any idea what might cause this? The `NaN` suggests its an array thats allocated but...
Hmm.... that's a good question.... I'm usually hesitant to add "*Core.jl" dependencies because a lot of them are of questionable usage but ChainRulesCore.jl might be an exception. One alternative solution...
Let's put it in a separate package for now so we can work out the kinks. We can always merge it back here (in the event there's a good reason...
Can we do a separate package that works now, and becomes a weak dependency in Julia v1.9?
I see. I think a weak dependency hear would be fine. I would suggest forgetting the separate project and just requiring v1.9
Polynomial with rational coefficients
You need both: this avoids an ambiguity that would be introduced in https://github.com/JuliaAlgebra/MultivariatePolynomials.jl/pull/307