#10963: More functorial constructions
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: nthiery | Owner: stumpc5
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_review
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-6.1
Component: categories | Resolution:
Keywords: days54 | Merged in:
Authors: Nicolas M. Thiéry | Reviewers: Simon King, Frédéric
Report Upstream: N/A | Chapoton
Branch: | Work issues:
public/ticket/10963 | Commit:
Dependencies: #11224, #8327, | ec340363a811bbafbb8cd5ff8f39e75db9872f9f
#10193, #12895, #14516, #14722, | Stopgaps:
#13589, #14471, #15069, #15094, |
#11688, #13394, #15150, #15506 |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by nthiery):
Replying to [comment:302 SimonKing]:
> Do you think that it is a valid solution to let
`._base_category_class_and_axiom` be explicitly set, with the exception of
5 cases in which it is computed/guessed by a lazy attribute? Even with the
caveat that this "explicit setting" happens as side-effect of a
`__classget__`? I think it is, since the `__classget__` method does not
need to ''guess'': It merely documents how it has constructed the category
that `__classget__` returns.
From reading the discussion so far, this sounds reasonable. I'll be back
to Sage development tomorrow (yeah, finally!), and review in details your
changes then.
Thanks to all of you for figuring out the issue in my black magic!
Happy new year!
Nicolas
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10963#comment:304>
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.
