On Oct 30, 2008, at 12:49 AM, Henryk Trappmann wrote: > On Oct 30, 3:01 am, Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> More on topic, much better merge the two and have the best of both >> than have competing implementations. Shouldn't this belong in sage/ >> rings rather than in combinat? > > Yes I agree. > > I also still search a cool name instead of LazyPowerSeriesRing or > PowerSeriesRingI, any ideas? > > I think it should start with PowerSeries or PS as someone who searches > for such functionality can use the tab completion then. > > On the other hand the difference to the standard finite > sage.rings.power_series_ring.PowerSeriesRing should be made clear.
I like LazyPowerSeriesRing, but I also thing the PowerSeriesRing constructor should take 'lazy' or infinity as a precision, creating an actual LazyPowerSeriesRing. - Robert --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
