#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, | eb7b486c6fecac296052f980788e15e2ad1b59e4
#10193, #12895, #14516, #14722, | Stopgaps:
#13589, #14471, #15069, #15094, |
#11688, #13394, #15150, #15506 |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by vbraun):
Nicolas, I like you and your contribution but I don't think you understood
what I'm saying. So let me be completely blunt: This ticket is nowhere
near ready to be merged, and I'm totally opposed to giving it positive
review at this point. We really should have had this discussion before the
first line was written. You failed to seek any external input when
drafting it. There is no post to sage-devel about this. We even have a
formal RFC process (SEP) for foundational changes which you did not pursue
either. So if this is too late in the whole process for a basic discussion
then that is your own fault.
IMHO we have to at least get rid of the open-ended list of blessed
adjectives that have special hidden/surprising meaning. This includes all
cases where substrings of class names are matched. We can change the
implementation details later, but whatever programming interface we fix
now will be exceedingly difficult to change once this is merged. Its hard
enough to communicate a design paradigm to the wider developer community,
it would be entirely confusing to change it in a year.
Anything else, including the implementation (but not the programming
interface for specifying) relations could be left for later, I agree. But
without having a reasonable idea of what kind of relations we want to
support we can't devise a suitable programming interface. In particular, I
think your current interface of specifying a list of
`extra_super_categories()` is fundamentally flawed for the reasons that I
stated.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10963#comment:419>
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.
