#14249: There should be no need to have _an_element_ implement to multiply
elements
------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
Reporter: SimonKing | Owner: robertwb
Type: defect | Status: needs_review
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-5.10
Component: coercion | Resolution:
Keywords: | Work issues:
Report Upstream: N/A | Reviewers: Travis Scrimshaw
Authors: Simon King | Merged in:
Dependencies: #14264 | Stopgaps:
------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
Old description:
> We currently have
> {{{
> sage: from sage.structure.element import ModuleElement
> sage: class MyElement(ModuleElement):
> ....: def __init__(self, x, y, parent=None):
> ....: ModuleElement.__init__(self, parent)
> ....: def _mul_(self, other):
> ....: return self
> ....: def _rmul_(self, other):
> ....: return self
> ....: def _lmul_(self, other):
> ....: return self
> ....:
> sage: class MyParent(Parent):
> ....: Element = MyElement
> ....:
> sage: P = MyParent(category=Rings())
> sage: P(1,2)
> Generic element of a structure
> sage: a = _
> sage: a*2
> Traceback (most recent call last):
> ...
> NotImplementedError: please implement _an_element_ for <class
> '__main__.MyParent_with_category'>
> }}}
>
> I find this very annoying.
>
> The background is that the coercion model tries to get a multiplication
> action, namely `RightModuleAction`. During initialisation of the module
> action, some sanity tests are performed. In particular, an element of the
> acting parent and the acted-upon set are taken and the action called on
> these two elements.
>
> Problem: Where to get the two elements from? Currently, they are gotten
> from the method `an_element()`, which in turn relies on `_an_element_()`
> being implemented if the default implementation is not good enough (which
> is the case in the example above).
>
> But normally, we do not want to have the `RightModuleAction` just out of
> the blue: Typically (in the example above, at least), we want to create
> it during the first multiplication. And in that moment we ''do'' have two
> elements.
>
> So, I propose to make it possible to pass the two elements being
> multiplied to the constructor of `Left/RightModuleAction`, and let
> `an_element()` be called ''only'' if no element is passed.
New description:
We currently have
{{{
sage: from sage.structure.element import ModuleElement
sage: class MyElement(ModuleElement):
....: def __init__(self, x, y, parent=None):
....: ModuleElement.__init__(self, parent)
....: def _mul_(self, other):
....: return self
....: def _rmul_(self, other):
....: return self
....: def _lmul_(self, other):
....: return self
....:
sage: class MyParent(Parent):
....: Element = MyElement
....:
sage: P = MyParent(category=Rings())
sage: P(1,2)
Generic element of a structure
sage: a = _
sage: a*2
Traceback (most recent call last):
...
NotImplementedError: please implement _an_element_ for <class
'__main__.MyParent_with_category'>
}}}
I find this very annoying.
The background is that the coercion model tries to get a multiplication
action, namely `RightModuleAction`. During initialisation of the module
action, some sanity tests are performed. In particular, an element of the
acting parent and the acted-upon set are taken and the action called on
these two elements.
Problem: Where to get the two elements from? Currently, they are gotten
from the method `an_element()`, which in turn relies on `_an_element_()`
being implemented if the default implementation is not good enough (which
is the case in the example above).
But normally, we do not want to have the `RightModuleAction` just out of
the blue: Typically (in the example above, at least), we want to create it
during the first multiplication. And in that moment we ''do'' have two
elements.
So, I propose to make it possible to pass the two elements being
multiplied to the constructor of `Left/RightModuleAction`, and let
`an_element()` be called ''only'' if no element is passed.
__Apply__
* [attachment:trac_14249-coercion_without_an_element.patch]
--
Comment (by SimonKing):
OK, the patches got folded.
Apply trac_14249-coercion_without_an_element.patch
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/14249#comment:12>
Sage <http://www.sagemath.org>
Sage: Creating a Viable Open Source Alternative to Magma, Maple, Mathematica,
and MATLAB
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-trac" 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 http://groups.google.com/group/sage-trac?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
