On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 8:30 AM, Nick Alexander <ncalexan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> That's probably for the best -- it was a pretty bad idea, and any >> implementation that one comes up with is probably going to be terrible >> in one way or another. Don't do it. > > I (and you?) did something similar for torsion subgroups of elliptic > curves. One can always break out the neighbours object, and then > provide the original functions in terms of that new object. That > factors the code while preserving the rich interface. I don't think I was responsible for this. I maintain the opinion that it's a bad idea, though I'm willing to capitulate if enough people disagree. OTOH, if you've implemented it, I trust that it isn't too ugly -- so maybe if somebody is interested in this sort of a project, they could look at your code as an example. However, Robert Miller has been notably silent on this topic. We should try to get him to weigh in before making any sweeping decisions, since he's (at the very least) the most familiar with the code. --tom --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
