#15183: x in IntegralDomains() should refine category
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: saraedum | Owner:
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_review
Priority: minor | Milestone: sage-6.0
Component: categories | Resolution:
Keywords: | Merged in:
Authors: Julian Rueth | Reviewers:
Report Upstream: N/A | Work issues:
Branch: | Commit:
u/saraedum/ticket/15183 | 2282a39caa83c83ceef1000eb028014f5556a606
Dependencies: #14482 | Stopgaps:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by saraedum):
Replying to [comment:11 SimonKing]:
> The main problem for me is that it uses git, and as much as I know, the
"master" branch in the trac-git version of Sage does not pass tests.
I see.
> Hence, I currently have no version of Sage which I could use to test
your changes. And besides, my knowledge of git is too little to really
understand what has changed and what happened in a dependency.
You could use ./sage --dev diff --base=dependencies to see the changes
introduced on the ticket itself.
> In any case, are you really sure that `IntegralDomains()` needs the
refinement? The reason for introducing the refinement in testing
containment in `Fields()` was the fact that `Fields.__contains__` does
some pretty custom things, that are really slow, unless the objects's
category is properly initialised. Hence, the idea was to "cache" the
result of the slow test by refining the category, so that next time the
slow test will be avoided.
What does `Fields.__contains__` do? It calls `.is_field()` which might be
expensive (e.g. in the case Z/nZ). Integral domains should do the same,
call `.is_integral_domain()` which is as expensive.
> But `IntegralDomains` has no custom implementation of `__contains__`.
So, could you elaborate a bit more on the reason of your suggestion?
I believe that's why the check `IntegerModRing(2) in IntegralDomains()`
failed, right?
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/15183#comment:13>
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.
