#10963: More functorial constructions
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
Reporter: | Owner: stumpc5
nthiery | Status: needs_work
Type: | Milestone:
enhancement | Resolution:
Priority: major | Merged in:
Component: | Reviewers: Simon King
categories | Work issues: Reduce startup time by 5%. Avoid
Keywords: | "recursion depth exceeded (ignored)". Trivial
Authors: | doctest fixes.
Nicolas M. Thiéry | Dependencies: #11224, #8327, #10193, #12895,
Report Upstream: N/A | #14516, #14722, #13589
Branch: |
Stopgaps: |
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
Comment (by nthiery):
Replying to [comment:59 SimonKing]:
> Why should we have a hard-coded category `Fields()`, if all information
is encoded in the combination of `Rings().Division()` and
`Rings().Commutative()`? Should we not aim at removing
sage.categories.fields if we take the axiomatic approach serious?
Fields is already implemented as a CategoryWithAxiom. But it's a non
trivial category (there are quite a few parent and element methods),
so we want to keep it around.
Cheers,
Nicolas
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10963#comment:63>
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.
