On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 11:54:09AM +0200, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> I'm sure we are already breaking that specification all over the place when
> coercion is involved.
Indeed. And I get bitten by it every now and then.
> So I see Python's specification as a guideline and something nice to
> have, b
On 2015-05-05 11:48, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote:
Though note that doing equality up to coercion has drawbacks; in
particular since it can easily break Python's specification that two
equal objects shall have the same hash.
http://wiki.sagemath.org/EqualityCoercion
I'm sure we are already
Salut Vincent!
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 11:39:27AM +0200, Vincent Delecroix wrote:
> On 20/04/15 04:54, David Roe wrote:
> >On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 10:18 AM, Volker Braun
> >wrote:
> >
> >>I agree, coercion G -> M is probably the right thing to do here.
> >>
> >+1
>
> Thanks for your supp
On 20/04/15 04:54, David Roe wrote:
On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 10:18 AM, Volker Braun
wrote:
I agree, coercion G -> M is probably the right thing to do here.
+1
Thanks for your support! I opened #18258.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel
On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 10:18 AM, Volker Braun
wrote:
> I agree, coercion G -> M is probably the right thing to do here.
>
+1
> On Sunday, April 19, 2015 at 7:47:11 AM UTC-4, vdelecroix wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I really do not like
>>
>> sage: M = MatrixSpace(QQ,3)
>> sage: G = SL(3, QQ)
>> sa
I agree, coercion G -> M is probably the right thing to do here.
On Sunday, April 19, 2015 at 7:47:11 AM UTC-4, vdelecroix wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I really do not like
>
> sage: M = MatrixSpace(QQ,3)
> sage: G = SL(3, QQ)
> sage: m1 = M(1)
> sage: m2 = G(1)
> sage: m1
> [1 0 0]
> [0 1 0]
>
