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. Thiéry "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.
