Hi Martin, On 2014-05-28, 'Martin R' via sage-combinat-devel <sage-combinat-devel@googlegroups.com> wrote: >> E.g., it should know domain and codomain, and it should know >> what category it belongs to. I think it makes sense to let a morphism >> know whether it is injective or surjective. However, additional >> information that is certainly interesting to researchers (e.g.: "Was first >> defined by John Doe in his seminal paper in Journal of Applied >> Irrelevance") clearly should not be stored as an attribute of a morphism. >> > > I do not see any reason why such information should not be stored somewhere > within sage, possibly in form of a database. Could you please explain?
I clearly said: "... should not be stored as an attribute OF A MORPHISM". I also clearly said "... is certainly interesting to researchers", hence (which I said in other parts of the post) it would certainly be worth-while to store somewhere in Sage. I just doubt that storing it locally as an attribute of a morphism is a good idea. Best regards, Simon -- 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.
