To respond to the OP: I'm all for getting rid of these functions.
"Nicolas M. Thiery" writes:
> Also, the idiom ``is_Field(P)`` would be best replaced by ``P in Fields()``.
As a beginner I might wonder, "Why is it `5/1 in ZZ` but `ZZ in
Fields()`? Why not `5/1 in ZZ()` or `ZZ in Fields`?"
These
Florent Hivert writes:
>> sage: ZZ in Fields
>> False
>> sage: ZZ in Fields()
>> False
>> sage: QQ in Fields
>> True
>> sage: QQ in Fields()
>> True
>>
>> I don't pretend to understand why this is the case :) But maybe it's
>> better if we tell new users to use `ZZ
Hi,
1. (On Sage syntax):
For the record, there are some reasons why ZZ in Fields doesn't
(and perhaps shouldn't) make sense: Fields is a function not the
category it returns:
sage: Fields
sage: Fields()
Category of fields
I think a student learning Sage should have a first session in which
the
Hi Florent!
On 2012-03-28, Florent Hivert wrote:
>> For parameter-less categories like Fields, I don't have a feeling for
>> whether one should teach new users to use the idiom ``X in Fields`` or
>> ``X in Fields()``. I tend to use the later mysefl.
>
> Speed could be a (not so important) argumen
Hi Keshav,
> Incidentally, `ZZ in Fields` works just fine::
>
> sage: 5/1 in ZZ
> True
> sage: 5/1 in ZZ()
>
> ---
> TypeError Traceback (most recent call
> last)
>
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 05:39:51AM -0700, David Kohel wrote:
> Doing some magic to make 'QQ^2 in VectorSpaces' work
> might just do injustice to first-time users, since it defers
> the realization that they just made a typo -- unless
> VectorSpaces is no longer a Python class:
>
> sage: VectorSpac
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 11:27:24PM +0200, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 05:39:51AM -0700, David Kohel wrote:
> > Doing some magic to make 'QQ^2 in VectorSpaces' work
> > might just do injustice to first-time users, since it defers
> > the realization that they just made a typo
I think the idea was that if you cared about speed you would just use
Fields(), but that it wasn't an important point in discussing whether QQ in
Fields should be valid.
David
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 09:06, Simon King wrote:
> Hi Florent!
>
> On 2012-03-28, Florent Hivert wrote:
> >> For parame
Hi Simon,
> On 2012-03-28, Florent Hivert wrote:
> >> For parameter-less categories like Fields, I don't have a feeling for
> >> whether one should teach new users to use the idiom ``X in Fields`` or
> >> ``X in Fields()``. I tend to use the later mysefl.
> >
> > Speed could be a (not so im
Well, I wrote a script to delete some of the is_* functions, but it
turned out to be a little more complicated of a task then I thought it
would be, so this patch doesn't delete as many as I was aiming for but
at least it's a start: http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/12824
-Jim
On Thu, Mar
10 matches
Mail list logo
