Re: [julia-users] Using `Rational` with `Poly`
Interesting. If the changes don't hurt the original use case of the type,
they may be reasonable to make.
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 4:59 PM, Fengyang Wang
wrote:
> You are right; it did not work. I made some modifications to fix it, but
> they required a significant rethinking of many of the methods, so it would
> be a different type entirely. Nemo supports rational functions in any case,
> and I think that's a better idea.
>
> On Sunday, February 7, 2016 at 11:21:17 AM UTC-5, Stefan Karpinski wrote:
>>
>> There are various assumptions baked into the rational code that may or
>> may not be satisfied by non-integer numeric types. I would suggest taking
>> the code from Base and trying it out without that restriction and seeing
>> how it goes.
>>
>> On Saturday, February 6, 2016, Fengyang Wang wrote:
>>
>>> I was looking for a Julia package to handle rational functions, when I
>>> noticed that the `Polynomials` package implements `gcd`, `div`, and `rem`.
>>> So it would be possible to simply use `Rational{Poly}`... or so I thought.
>>> Unfortunately, the type `Rational` prevents this use, since it requires its
>>> type parameter to derive from `Integer`.
>>>
>>> I think it would be more in line with Julia's goal of polymorphism if
>>> `Rational` "just worked" with any Euclidean domain. Is there some
>>> justification for the current behaviour, or should I file this as a issue
>>> (or make a pull request)?
>>>
>>
Re: [julia-users] Using `Rational` with `Poly`
You are right; it did not work. I made some modifications to fix it, but
they required a significant rethinking of many of the methods, so it would
be a different type entirely. Nemo supports rational functions in any case,
and I think that's a better idea.
On Sunday, February 7, 2016 at 11:21:17 AM UTC-5, Stefan Karpinski wrote:
>
> There are various assumptions baked into the rational code that may or may
> not be satisfied by non-integer numeric types. I would suggest taking the
> code from Base and trying it out without that restriction and seeing how it
> goes.
>
> On Saturday, February 6, 2016, Fengyang Wang > wrote:
>
>> I was looking for a Julia package to handle rational functions, when I
>> noticed that the `Polynomials` package implements `gcd`, `div`, and `rem`.
>> So it would be possible to simply use `Rational{Poly}`... or so I thought.
>> Unfortunately, the type `Rational` prevents this use, since it requires its
>> type parameter to derive from `Integer`.
>>
>> I think it would be more in line with Julia's goal of polymorphism if
>> `Rational` "just worked" with any Euclidean domain. Is there some
>> justification for the current behaviour, or should I file this as a issue
>> (or make a pull request)?
>>
>
Re: [julia-users] Using `Rational` with `Poly`
There are various assumptions baked into the rational code that may or may
not be satisfied by non-integer numeric types. I would suggest taking the
code from Base and trying it out without that restriction and seeing how it
goes.
On Saturday, February 6, 2016, Fengyang Wang
wrote:
> I was looking for a Julia package to handle rational functions, when I
> noticed that the `Polynomials` package implements `gcd`, `div`, and `rem`.
> So it would be possible to simply use `Rational{Poly}`... or so I thought.
> Unfortunately, the type `Rational` prevents this use, since it requires its
> type parameter to derive from `Integer`.
>
> I think it would be more in line with Julia's goal of polymorphism if
> `Rational` "just worked" with any Euclidean domain. Is there some
> justification for the current behaviour, or should I file this as a issue
> (or make a pull request)?
>
[julia-users] Using `Rational` with `Poly`
I was looking for a Julia package to handle rational functions, when I
noticed that the `Polynomials` package implements `gcd`, `div`, and `rem`.
So it would be possible to simply use `Rational{Poly}`... or so I thought.
Unfortunately, the type `Rational` prevents this use, since it requires its
type parameter to derive from `Integer`.
I think it would be more in line with Julia's goal of polymorphism if
`Rational` "just worked" with any Euclidean domain. Is there some
justification for the current behaviour, or should I file this as a issue
(or make a pull request)?
