Dear William, On Feb 20, 9:47 pm, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Feb 20, 2008 12:30 PM, Simon King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snip> > > Would it be a reasonable idea to implement such method, so that > > copy(R) > > yields a ring that is isomorphic with R but has different variable > > names (e.g., by adding a prime to the variable names)? > > No, that would not be reasonable. [[woah, John Palmieri just appeared > in my office... chat for a while...] Anyway,copyshould return an > exactcopysince that's the semantics of __copy__ in Python. <snip> > > More generally, i believe it'd be a good idea to have a __copy__ > > method for *any* Sage objects defined via the Singular interface. > > > E.g., when one defines a matrix > > sage: D=singular.matrix(3,3,'a,b,c, a**2,b**2,c**2, a**3,b**3,c**3') > > then > > C=copy(D) > > should be a copy of D (in the same ring). Up to now, one obtains > > sage: C=copy(D) > > sage: C > > (invalid object -- defined in terms of closed session) > > I would certainly be all for that too! > > Any chance you could write it, or do I have to?
Done - see http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/2300 With that patch, copy(R) for a SingularElement R returns a SingularElement that is the same as R but not identical with R. I am not sure whether that ticket belongs to "commutative algebra" or to "interfaces". I chose "commutative algebra", hoping it is ok. Cheers Simon --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
