On 8 February 2016 at 10:13, David Loeffler <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 6 February 2016 at 22:48, Volker Braun <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> So as long as the elements are sortable a set is just as good as a list >> for doctests purposes. > > > > Isn't that the whole point of this discussion: that number field elements > are presently *not* sortable, in any consistent and reliable way?
Yes. I very much like Nils and David R's suggestion, particularly in Nils's version where each number field can have one or more methods for sorting its own elements --perhaps based on the ideas I presented, but including at least one which is very fast a default, perhaps based on the string representation. Then anyone who, like me, needs to sort n.f. elements in a specific way can see which methods are available, and even add a new one if want to. I hope others will help in implementing this -- but be prepared for a lot of doctest outputs to be nchaed on account of such a change in order. This could be a time to (for instance) make roots() return a set instead of a list, but that would require even more changes everywhere so I would prefer that change to happen later, if at all. John > > David > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "sage-nt" 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 https://groups.google.com/group/sage-nt. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
