Nicolas M. Thiery wrote:
Hi!
Thanks Jason for working on that!
On ..., John Cremona:
As a number theorist who is more liklely to want Hermite and Smith
normal forms than an actual echelon form (i nthe usual linear algebra
over fields sense), I would be quite happy for echelon form of a
matrix over ZZ to promote to QQ, and have differently names functions
for Hermite and Smith (perhaps smith_form() and hermite_form()!)
Well, as someone working alternatively on fields and rings, I really
want to write generic code that uses "whatever best echelon form there
exists for the current base ring/field/..." :-)
I'd rather have it called `echelon_form`, so I vote for leaving
echelon_form as is. Jason's current change has the merit of pleasing
everyone. If there is a strong majority for further changing
`echelon_form`, then please make sure to keep it available under some
alternative name.
Yes, as I understood it, the original plan was to make the current
echelon_form instead be called hermite_form.
Thanks,
Jason
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URL: http://www.sagemath.org
