On Monday, November 26, 2012 9:22:19 AM UTC, Nicolas M. Thiéry wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 05:55:30AM +0000, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> > wouldn't EE be a more consistent choice, in line with QQ, ZZ, etc?
> - It's a bit different, since E is not a parent, but a
> function/constructor returning an element.
>
+1
- Just for information, let me repeat here an alternative I mentioned
> on the ticket:
> sage: UCF.inject_shorthands()
> sage: E(3)
>
But again that does nothing to help discover the functionality. When I
first used cyclotomics in Sage I tried E(3) first, but clearly that didn't
work. Your notation would only help if there were some precedent so that
you could reasonably expect that some fraction of users expects UCF to be
the universal cyclotomic field.
Thats different from the symmetric functions because
- symmetric functions inject_shorthands() overwrites a preexisting global
name ("e")
- you first need to construct the symmetric functions over a base ring, so
you first had to define the parent
>
> We already do this for symmetric functions, and it's a good idiom
> that could be generalized to other situations.
>
> - I am not sure about E = UCF.gen, since it does not construct only
> generators:
>
> sage: E(6)
> -E(3)^2
>
> Cheers,
> Nicolas
> --
> Nicolas M. Thi�ry "Isil" <nth...@users.sf.net <javascript:>>
> http://Nicolas.Thiery.name/
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
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.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel?hl=en.
