>From what I rmemeber, #14711 should also be in a state of potential positive review now. I just had no time to actually give it a last check. If anyone at one of the Sage Days as they are apparently two currently, want s to review it that would be a very nice addition to Sage!
On Friday, November 8, 2013 9:10:49 AM UTC+1, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote: > > Hi, > > IIRC we had some problem with SchemeMorphism recently while making (or > while Simon wa making I must say) the coercion system more cache friendly. > See #14711 and especially: > * http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/14711#comment:85 > * http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/14711#comment:93 > * and whatever is inbetween and afterward. > > Best, > JP > > On Friday, November 8, 2013 4:03:16 AM UTC+1, vdelecroix wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I was working with #15378 and I wondered why SchemeMorphism inherits >> from Element and not from Morphism as they should. I just discovered >> that this is because points on a scheme are special kind of >> SchemeMorphism. So in order to make it a group law for example, they >> need to be Element... >> >> I am completely stuck here. For the moment, my hack is to make >> SchemeMorphism_polynomial not inherit from SchemeMorphism. This is >> just crazy! >> >> Please help >> Vincent >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
