Yes we do, otherwise it doesn't make sense mathematically. There are lots of different metrics I can use on 2D vectors that make sense. Otherwise any (physical paper) maps would be very impractical. I think it is generally bad practice to assign mathematical significant things to classes that are not used for mathematical purposes.
I have no idea what your argument is for the second part. Separations of concerns means object A (in this case, an object for drawing something in 3D) only does things that are meant for object A (drawing stuff) and not do things that are meant for object B (a vector or line segment in Euclidean space). It has nothing to do with what you use to actually do the implementation. If you are worried about linking together stuff that shouldn't be needed, that to me is a code smell. Best, Travis On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 10:14:22 AM UTC+9 Kwankyu Lee wrote: > On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 9:18:06 AM UTC+9 Travis Scrimshaw wrote: > >> Éric, what do you think about adding such things to SageManifolds? Could >> this be feasible? >> > > It is embarrassing that an idea of attaching ".length()" method to a line > segment graphics object leads to SageManifolds. We don't need vectors and > inner products to compute the length of a line segment. > > If we ever implement the idea, then it should be done with basic python > only for "separations-of-concerns" and for modularization of sage. > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/f7e92932-0704-47dd-b6d9-0504bb612fe3n%40googlegroups.com.
