Dear Salvatore, On 2018-11-21, VulK <etn45...@gmail.com> wrote: > is there any reason why `MPolynomialRing_polydict` > hardcodes `MPolynomial_polydict` as its element class?
I believe it shouldn't hard-code it. > I would have expected something like > > ``` > class MPolynomialRing_polydict( MPolynomialRing_macaulay2_repr, > PolynomialRing_singular_repr, MPolynomialRing_base): > > Element = MPolynomial_polydict > ``` > followed by the use of `Element` whenever this was needed. Instead this class > defines a method `_poly_class` which is only used once in `__init__` to > define generators (at line 142). Afterwards, every method that needs to build > elements imports again MPolynomial_polydict. It would be fine (and is done in other examples) to assign self.Element during __init__. In other words, it is not compulsory that Element is a class attribute; it can very well be an attribute of an instance. However, I believe it is bad usage to hard-code a certain class as output of arithmetic errors. If "self" is an element of some algebraic parent, then the arithmetic methods of self (such as _mul_, _add_) should create and return instances of self.parent().element_class, which is a class dynamically created from self.parent().Element and from information encoded in self.parent().category(). Might be a good idea to create a trac ticket for it. Best regards, Simon -- 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.
