Hi!
On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 09:59:39AM -0400, Mark Shimozono wrote:
> Removing this made a difference.
> I made a TensorUnit class that was of this type,
> but not made by the usual tensor construction,
> and it needed the above definition to know it had a basis.
Oh, you are right, sorry! I misread the code. I though
TensorProductsCategory was a subclass of
RegressiveCovariantConstructionCategory. Hmm, back to the discussion
about option (a) or (b). The same question arises for
CartesianProducts; do we want it to be regressive, like is the case
of Quotients and the like. It's not exactly the same use case.
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 unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to sage-combinat-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sage-combinat-devel@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-combinat-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
