> To my mind, is_X(Z) is very unexplicit as it may be one of > > 1. isinstance(Z, X_class) > > 2. Z in X_category() > > which are two different things. Note that sage.rings.ring.is_Ring is > actually doing a transition from 1 to 2 and it might be subtle to remove > it currently. > > I am in favor of removing all is_X, but most of them needs to be done > case by case (mostly because of remaining "old parents").
+1 for removing the is_X methods when they are trivial, e.g., just an isinstance check. However, there are some non-trivial is_X functions IIRC. So I am not convinced we should remove those. Best, Travis -- 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.
