On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 9:25 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis <g...@cs.tamu.edu> wrote: > > What I said for THIS SPECIFIC problem is that the implicit coerciion > problem comes from > > if R has SetCategory then FullyRetractableTo R >
Bot note that the specific coercion also comes from Algebra? Do you also want to deny that DirectProduct(n,R) satisfies Algebra(R)? > See the message I sent on June 05, 2010. > > http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_name=877hmdxxmu.fsf%40gauss.cs.tamu.edu > > which I'm quoting: > ... > # ... This goes back to a comment I made > # a couple of days ago: strange things can happen when operations are > # overloaded just because one can, without much consideration for the > # semantics. > Thanks Gaby. > Bill Page wrote: > | Does it make sense to use the > | symbol * to denote mulitiplication of a Matrix by a row vector > | (DirectProduct)? > > That was not my proposal. > No, that is how it works now. The question is: should it? Regards, Bill Page. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "FriCAS - computer algebra system" group. To post to this group, send email to fricas-de...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to fricas-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/fricas-devel?hl=en.
