Hi Bruno, On 2015-02-19, Bruno Grenet <bruno.gre...@gmail.com> wrote: > It would definitely make sense to me to have a simpler way to obtain the > same result as above, for instance with the simpler invocation: > > sage: R.<t> = PolynomialRing(QQ, order='neglex') > > To me it would make sense to return a libsingular multivariate > polynomial ring whenever an ordering is prescribed or an implementation > is explicitly chosen. But I think I've seen quite often people writing > > sage: R.<t> = PolynomialRing(QQ, 1) > > and I do not think they wanted to get a Multivariate 1-variable > Polynomial Ring. While whenever a user writes "order=..." or > "implementation=singluar", it seems quite clear that s/he knows what > s/he wants!
While I totally agree that using arguments "order=..." or "implementation=libsingular" should in future be sufficient to create a (multivariate and potentially localised) libsingular polynomial ring, I am not so sure about changing the meaning of "PolynomialRing(QQ,1)". It would be a backward incompatible change, and some people out in the wild use it. So, to the very least we'd need a deprecation period. Best regards, Simon -- 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 post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
