#15223: Let the `TestSuite` test that the construction of a parent returns the
parent
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: SimonKing | Owner:
Type: defect | Status: new
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-5.12
Component: coercion | Resolution:
Keywords: | Merged in:
Authors: | Reviewers:
Report Upstream: N/A | Work issues:
Branch: | Commit:
u/SimonKing/ticket/15223 | a81fcc1072df88cc369d7aa0b7ae423fd97d7f02
Dependencies: | Stopgaps:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by nbruin):
Replying to [comment:10 SimonKing]:
> While we are at it, I thought one could improve `QuotientFunctor`. First
of all, it ''must'' allow to pass additional arguments to the quotient
being constructed. For example, the construction functor for
`IntegerModRing(19, category=Fields())` must know that the category is
specialised.
Isn't that going to be a problem?
{{{
sage: A=IntegerModRing(19, category=Fields())
sage: B=IntegerModRing(19)
sage: B in Fields()
True
}}}
After this isn't the category of `B` refined to fields? And doesn't that
then mean that A and B are the same, and hence should be identical? But if
!UniqueRepresentation takes the category argument into account, they won't
be identical.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/15223#comment:11>
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.
