On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 06:38:57PM -0800, Andrey Novoseltsev wrote: > There was a short discussion about it some time ago: > http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel/browse_thread/thread/7123d76d7f2d0519/e0423cb0b000526f > with William stating that we do consider schemes as sets in Sage.
Ok. If, as sets, your construction is the usual cartesian products, then using ``cartesian_product`` seems natural. > I have no idea how consistent they are with functors in general, but > I guess that for now we will avoid covering inherited methods as our > Cartesian products don't have necessary attributes yet. Hmm, I am a bit confused here. What attributes do you mean? Cheers, Nicolas -- Nicolas M. ThiƩry "Isil" <nthi...@users.sf.net> http://Nicolas.Thiery.name/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-combinat-devel" group. To post to this group, send email to sage-combinat-devel@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-combinat-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-combinat-devel?hl=en.