On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 7:12 PM, Nick Alexander <ncalexan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 23-Jan-09, at 7:33 AM, William Stein wrote:
>
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 7:26 AM, Robert Miller
>> <rlmills...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I've used it several times and see no reason at
>>>> all to remove it.
>>>
>>> Redundancy is one reason I can think of. Is there any functionality
>>> you can get out of this that you can't just get out of is_prime,
>>> primes, or prime_range?
>>
>> If anything, I think there should be a lot more objects like Primes,
>> e.g., sets like this for primes in number fields, prime ideals of
>> commutative rings, etc.
>
> +1! I wrote the number fields primes_of_degree_one_{list, iter}, and
> it might have been nicer to have made it an object.
Mike Hansen recently wrote a decorator that takes an iterator and
turns it into a CombinatorialClass, so it would be easy to convert
these to CombinatorialClass objects. (Although it may only be in the
sage-combinat branch now and not yet merged into Sage.)
CombinatorialClass objects are really great for this type of thing,
and behave much like Primes() does (although Primes() is not a
CombinatorialClass).
Franco
--
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URLs: http://www.sagemath.org
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
