#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 nbruin):
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?
Would it be too onerous to just change/handcode those 5 cases? It would
get rid of the necessity to have an incredibly fragile magic fallback that
has program logic attached to `__name__`. When I stumbled into it I was
unpleasantly surprised. Sure, as a ''guess'' it's not a bad heuristic, but
as the Zen of Python says: "In the face of ambiguity refuse the temptation
to guess". I think that's often good advice and I think it's here too.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10963#comment:305>
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.
