On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 2:43 AM, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote:
> On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 10:30:18PM -0700, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> > > Eric:
> > > In the same vein, shouldn't base_ring be removed from Parent as well ?
>
> Yes indeed.
>
> > As Parents have Elements, this is also the root of operations
On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 10:30:18PM -0700, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> > Eric:
> > In the same vein, shouldn't base_ring be removed from Parent as well ?
Yes indeed.
> As Parents have Elements, this is also the root of operations that
> deal with coercion (arithmetic between elements of unequal Paren
>
> In the same vein, shouldn't base_ring be removed from Parent as well ?
>
> sage: Set([1,2,3]).base_ring()
>
> The return value is None, which is arguably correct, for a generic set has
> no base ring, but it might be surprising when using tab completion to
> discover functionalities to see t
On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 2:10 PM, Eric Gourgoulhon wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Le mardi 5 mai 2015 12:44:08 UTC+2, vdelecroix a écrit :
>>
>>
>> IMHO, they do not belong either to parents. A set has generators?
>>
>> sage: Partitions(5).gens_dict()
>> Traceback (most recent call last):
>> ...
>> AttributeError
Hi,
Le mardi 5 mai 2015 12:44:08 UTC+2, vdelecroix a écrit :
>
>
> IMHO, they do not belong either to parents. A set has generators?
>
> sage: Partitions(5).gens_dict()
> Traceback (most recent call last):
> ...
> AttributeError: 'StandardPermutations_n_with_category' object
> has no attribut
On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 12:44:00PM +0200, Vincent Delecroix wrote:
> > Very much like for Parent, there probably are things that are in
> > CategoryObject for very old legacy reasons (typically pre-categories!)
> > and really do not belong there; this could typically be the case for
> > generators
On 05/05/15 11:00, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote:
> On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 10:41:42AM +0200, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>> what are the types CategoryObject and Parent supposed to represent? For
>> example, I don't understand why generators and names are dealt with on the
>> level of CategoryObject but const
On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 10:41:42AM +0200, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> what are the types CategoryObject and Parent supposed to represent? For
> example, I don't understand why generators and names are dealt with on the
> level of CategoryObject but constructing elements is dealt with on the level
> of
Parent should represent an object in a category that has a forgetful
functor to sets; CategoryObject an object in an arbitrary category. I have
no objection to moving the generator and name code to Parent.
David
On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 4:41 AM, Jeroen Demeyer
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> what are the typ
Hello,
what are the types CategoryObject and Parent supposed to represent? For
example, I don't understand why generators and names are dealt with on
the level of CategoryObject but constructing elements is dealt with on
the level of Parent.
In fact, in all of Sage, there is only a single cl
10 matches
Mail list logo
