Interesting. If the changes don't hurt the original use case of the type,
they may be reasonable to make.
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 4:59 PM, Fengyang Wang <fengyangwa...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> You are right; it did not work. I made some modifications to fix it, but
> they required a significant rethinking of many of the methods, so it would
> be a different type entirely. Nemo supports rational functions in any case,
> and I think that's a better idea.
>
> On Sunday, February 7, 2016 at 11:21:17 AM UTC-5, Stefan Karpinski wrote:
>>
>> There are various assumptions baked into the rational code that may or
>> may not be satisfied by non-integer numeric types. I would suggest taking
>> the code from Base and trying it out without that restriction and seeing
>> how it goes.
>>
>> On Saturday, February 6, 2016, Fengyang Wang <fengya...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I was looking for a Julia package to handle rational functions, when I
>>> noticed that the `Polynomials` package implements `gcd`, `div`, and `rem`.
>>> So it would be possible to simply use `Rational{Poly}`... or so I thought.
>>> Unfortunately, the type `Rational` prevents this use, since it requires its
>>> type parameter to derive from `Integer`.
>>>
>>> I think it would be more in line with Julia's goal of polymorphism if
>>> `Rational` "just worked" with any Euclidean domain. Is there some
>>> justification for the current behaviour, or should I file this as a issue
>>> (or make a pull request)?
>>>
>>
