#8335: Finite Field lattices for (pseudo-)Conway polynomials
------------------------------------------------+---------------------------
       Reporter:  roed                          |         Owner:  AlexGhitza    
                
           Type:  enhancement                   |        Status:  needs_review  
                
       Priority:  major                         |     Milestone:  sage-5.11     
                
      Component:  algebra                       |    Resolution:                
                
       Keywords:  days49                        |   Work issues:                
                
Report Upstream:  N/A                           |     Reviewers:  Jean-Pierre 
Flori, Luca De Feo
        Authors:  David Roe, Jean-Pierre Flori  |     Merged in:                
                
   Dependencies:  #13894                        |      Stopgaps:                
                
------------------------------------------------+---------------------------

Comment (by pbruin):

 Replying to [comment:84 defeo]:
 > Replying to [comment:83 pbruin]:
 >
 > This discussion looks like the dear old dichotomy between quick feature
 integration and long specification design.

 Not quite; I am not at all advocating long specification design, and quick
 integration of new features (which I am all for) is in fact easier if they
 are smaller and don't intrude in places where they don't have to.

 > Having some kind of support for lattices of finite fields has been a
 long standing request. I agree with pbruin that a better interface between
 generic finite fields and their actual implementation would be beneficial.
 But this ticket is ready for review, while pbruin's is not.

 The part that is relevant for this ticket is now ready for review: see
 #14832 and #14833.

 > Would it be that hard to adapt pbruin's or any other interface if this
 ticket is merged? I'm willing to give positive review to this ticket, if
 it stands some more testing, and it doesn't mess too much with #12142.

 I am actually in favour of quickly solving the main things that this
 ticket does (implementing pseudo-Conway polynomials and coercion between
 different finite fields).  I just think it shouldn't add more code to the
 finite fields implementations (Givaro, PARI etc.), and should not (or at
 least not yet) fix a meaning for `GF(p^n)`.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/8335#comment:85>
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Reply via email to