I think the parent of the answer is not really the problem, but the actual code producing the answer:
sage: R = GaussianIntegers() sage: R(*10*)//*7* 10/7 I agree with Jeroen his comment made on the trac ticket: > Well, the correct behaviour would be to do the right thing in the > imaginary quadratic orders which are naturally Euclidean and raise an > exception otherwise On Friday, 6 October 2017 04:41:20 UTC+2, David Roe wrote: > > As pointed out in #23971, the following is unexpected if you're used to > floor division in Z: > > sage: R = GaussianIntegers() > sage: (R(1)//1).parent() > Number Field in I with defining polynomial x^2 + 1 > > For Gaussian integers, we can do better: there is a reasonable quo_rem > algorithm and R is norm-Euclidean. But it's not clear to me what the right > thing to implement is, since most orders are not norm-Euclidean, and it > would be strange to have the meaning of floor division vary by number field. > > Any thoughts? I do think that there is an expectation in Sage that the > parent of a//b is the same as the common parent of a and b, while a/b > changes the parent to the fraction field. > 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 an 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.
