-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 229
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
compiler: Hotfix unevaluation.Pow(1, ...) #2321
Conversation
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #2321 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 86.67% 86.67% -0.01%
==========================================
Files 229 229
Lines 43150 43153 +3
Branches 8001 8002 +1
==========================================
+ Hits 37401 37402 +1
- Misses 5053 5054 +1
- Partials 696 697 +1 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
Uncontroversial |
# such as `1**c` | ||
return sympy.S.One | ||
else: | ||
return cls.__base__.__new__(cls, base, exp, evaluate=False, **kwargs) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Do you not want to pass the kwarg evaluate
through here? It's currently not getting used
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
No we want to force not to evaluate we do it in a bunch of place and it's easier like that to separate it from the kwargs
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Mathias is correct
No description provided.