#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:65 SimonKing]:
> Sure it has quite a few parent and element methods. But the point
> is: Since the category of fields is nothing but
> `Rings().Division().Commutative()`, all these methods should be
> defined somewhere else.
Where else? Of course some of the methods currently in Fields might
actually work in a more general setting and could be lifted to some
super categories. But others are really about fields (like the trivial
is_field :-)), so that's their natural spot, isn't it?
Btw:
{{{
sage: Rings.Division.Commutative
<class 'sage.categories.fields.Fields'>
}}}
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10963#comment:70>
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.
