On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 08:53:33AM -0400, Mark Shimozono wrote:
> Yes, but there are cases in which it is desirable for the code
> to create pure "orphan" functions, say, to help
> create morphisms. These morphisms will NOT pass pickling.
> And this is apparently enough for one's patch to be given the
> thumbs-down by the code barons, and perhaps rightfully so.
>
> Example. When constructing a tensor product of module morphisms,
> due to some existing "optimizations" like automatic flattening of
> nested tensors and this tensor-unit business, in order to
> create reasonably efficient tensor product maps, I feel
> it is necessary and hightly convenient to manufacture, on the fly,
> a pure "orphan" function as an "on_basis"
> function to feed to module_morphism. There is no natural "home"
> for such functions, which are somewhat complicated and are
> created each time someone wants to
> tensor some morphisms.
Ok. Well, there is no free lunch: if it's not lexically somewhere,
it's not picklable; and thus using it in a morphims will make the
morphism non picklable (unless the morphism is pickled by construction
rather than from its input, which is probably possible here). It's not
a vital feature. So as a reviewer, I guess I would be ok with skipping
the pickling test in the TestSuite call: that gives explicitly the
state of affairs: ``the current implementation of the morphism is
missing the pickling feature''.
Cheers,
Nicolas
--
Nicolas M. Thiéry "Isil" <[email protected]>
http://Nicolas.Thiery.name/
--
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/d/optout.
