Sounds reasonable to me. David On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Alex Ghitza <aghi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 8:14 AM, David Roe<r...@math.harvard.edu> wrote: > > Currently there are no classes in sage inheriting form PowerSeries other > > than PowerSeries_poly. But one could write a lazy power series class > that > > used the same basic interface as PowerSeries, using lists or python > > functions, and define "class PowerSeries_lazy(PowerSeries)". I think > that's > > the distinction. > > Aha, that makes sense. So here's my problem: I'm working on trac 111, > i.e. change all the .copy() methods to __copy__(). Having done this > in power_series_poly.pyx, I am now getting a doctest failure in > power_series_ring_element.pyx, namely > > sage: copy(f) is f # !!! ok since power series are immutable. > Expected: > True > Got: > False > > > This is because PowerSeries already has a __copy__() method which just > returns self, while the __copy__() method of PowerSeries_poly actually > returns a copy. The doctest is failing because f is a > PowerSeries_poly and hence the derived method is used. > > So I'm not sure what to do. I cannot change the doctest because I > can't construct a PowerSeries which is not a PowerSeries_poly. My > thought now is to make PowerSeries.__copy__() return > NotImplementedError and have all derived classes override it. > > Is this reasonable? Is there a better solution I don't see now? > > Best, > Alex > > -- > Alex Ghitza -- Lecturer in Mathematics -- The University of Melbourne > -- Australia -- > http://www.ms.unimelb.edu.au/~aghitza/<http://www.ms.unimelb.edu.au/%7Eaghitza/> > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
