2020-10-15 08:21:06 UTC, John Cremona: > > I was expecting someone more pedantic than me to point out that this set > is not a field in the mathematical sense. Since this is a big change anyway > (at least to a lot of doctest outputs) should we think more carefully about > what we want to call RR? Instead of "Real floating-point field with x bits > of precision" we could have "Real floating-point numbers with x bits of > precision" perhaps. (With an implied "The set of" in front).
Good point! I like "Real floating-point numbers with x bits of precision" with short name RFN for real floating-point numbers. Or shorter: "RealFloats" -> "Real floats with x bits of precision", short name RF for the standard one with 53 bits of precision. Consistency would dictate to rename and change the string representation for all of the following: - ComplexField -> ComplexFloats - RealField -> RealFloats - ComplexDoubleField -> ComplexDoubleFloats - RealDoubleField -> RealDoubleFloats - ComplexBallField -> ComplexFloatBalls - ComplexBallField -> RealFloatBalls - ComplexIntervalField -> ComplexFloatIntervals - RealIntervalField -> RealFloatIntervals and maybe more sort-of-fields that can be listed using: ``` sage: [g for g in globals() if 'ield' in g] ``` - ComplexLazyField -> ComplexLazyFloats? - RealLazyField -> RealLazyFloats? - MPComplexField -> MPComplexFloats? What about pAdicField? Of course we can do things one at a time, but it's good to plan ahead and maybe have a meta-ticket to keep track of what is done and what needs to be done. Side remark: should ComplexIntervalFieldElement, FieldElement and NumberFieldElement be removed from the global namespace? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/cd24bb8e-ab14-43be-ada6-7da6a720ae4fo%40googlegroups.com.
