On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 3:02 PM, Simon King <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Hi Sebastian, > > On 22 Aug., 23:46, Sebastian Pancratz <[email protected]> wrote: > [...] > > I think I'd prefer the other suggestion, namely leaving the default > > behaviour of methods like "is_field" as it is at the moment (thereby > > not breaking any other code!) and introducing an optional argument to > > specifically suit the typical use case. > > ... and also with the possibility to assert properties such as being > field, being commutative, being integrally closed? Yes that would be very very nice indeed. And I think it shouldn't stop one from even changing something. E.g., it is fun to make elliptic curves over Z/nZ with n composite, and currently I do this by changing the is_field method R.is_field = lambda : True but it would be better to make it possible to correctly just say -- henceforth pretend R is a field. > Thank you for working on it! Yes, many thanks! William > > > Best regards, > Simon > > > -- William Stein Associate Professor of Mathematics University of Washington http://wstein.org --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send an email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
