Is there any reason for any categories to exist in the global namespace (besides backward compatibility, but this can be worked on) ? No, really, it's something that perhaps small% of Sage users have to use often, and such users are advanced enough to use import statements...
On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 4:13:23 PM UTC, Nicolas M. Thiéry wrote: > > > +1 to a catalog (using lazy imports as much as possible!) > +1 to removing not-very-common categories from global namespace > > Not convinced about the alias AdditiveCommutativeGroups = > CommutativeAdditiveGroups. I believe it will just add confusion, and > wildcards are our friends (as in *AdditiveGroups*?). Besides, as was > mentioned, one can already get something close with > AdditiveGroups().AdditiveCommutative() > > Open question: do we want the catalog to contain things like the short > hands CommutativeRings(), when we already have Rings().Commutative()? > When I implemented axioms, I left CommutativeRings around mostly with > backward compatibility in mind. > > Cheers, > Nicolas > -- > Nicolas M. Thiéry "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 unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
