> 1) Declarations use negative conditions. My guess is that
>the author wanted to avoid "overlaping declarations"
I agree with you on this.
Seems RecursivePolynomialCategory is used by NSMP,
and then by various TriangularSet, I'm not familar with
this subject.
--
You received this
oldk1331 wrote:
>
> OK, so if there's only category/domain constructor, but no
> arguments, ')show' will give predicates in the databse, no
> evaluation on that. I'm good with that.
>
> In your example, ')show XXX' gives result for FOOAGG, etc,
> but given an argument, it returns 0 exports:
>
>
>
> On 09/04/2016 11:47 PM, Waldek Hebisch wrote:
> > Specifically, there is block declaring
> > various versions of 'retract'.
>
> In fact, I find the choice of the name "retract" rather bad, because in
> some sense it's both a retract and a coerce. If R is an extension of
> Fraction(Integer)
Martin Baker wrote"
>
> I guess I could send you some patches and see if you accept them, but it
> seems more efficient to discuss the options first and then I could write
> a patch for the option which you and others on this list think is best.
>
> So, assuming that is acceptable, here is the
I looked a bit at RecursivePolynomialCategory and I must say
I do not like it. Specifically, there is block declaring
various versions of 'retract'. Now problems are:
1) Declarations use negative conditions. My guess is that
the author wanted to avoid "overlaping declarations",
for
Waldek,
Thank you for including the algebraic topology in 1.3.0 despite some
remaining issues.
I thought the best way to tackle those issues is to look at them, one at
a time, then try to work out a separate patch for each one.
I guess I could send you some patches and see if you accept
