#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 SimonKing):
Replying to [comment:13 saraedum]:
> What does `Fields.__contains__` do? It calls `.is_field()`
No, it calls `sage.rings.ring._is_Field`, and this is where `.is_field()`
might be called and the refinement might happen.
> 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?
Do you suggest to introduce a custom `IntegralDomains.__contains__`?
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/15183#comment:15>
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.
