Simon, did you ever reach a conclusion? The same problem is in elliptic curves: A point is both a morphism from Spec(R) and an abelian group element.
On Saturday, March 9, 2013 4:09:11 AM UTC-8, Simon King wrote: > > Concerning work-around: > > - Is there a way to re-define ModuleElement and Map, so that their > respective c(p)def methods will not get confused when inheriting from > both? > > If this question has a negative answer, then the (more Sage related) > question arises how else one can fit ChainComplexMorphism into Sage's > coercion framework: > > - Should one perhaps generally derive Map from ModuleElement rather than > from Element, anticipating that some maps may be added and not just > composed? After all, if there is no addition, then one can simply raise > an error. > - Let ChainComplexMorphism inherit from ModuleElement only, providing a > custom __call__ and __mul__, duplicating code for morphisms? > - Let it inherit from Morphism (i.e., Map) only, providing a custom > __add__, > or even try to get addition from the category framework? > > -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
