#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 nthiery):
Replying to [comment:435 SimonKing]:
> Well, in my early Sage days I occasionally complained that the source
code of
> category stuff can hardly be found (thus, I improved
`sage.misc.sageinspect`) and that
> the category framework is responsible for slowing things down (thus, I
made
> some contributions in that regard).
That's certainly right, and I am soo glad that you believed in the
design and contributed so much making it not only a reality but a
viable reality!
> But I did not raise the very argument you are mentioning.
> So, I am clearly entitled to consider over-design to solve
> far-fetched scalability issues `;-)`.
:-)
If this goes beyond "considering" be prepared to defend it
though. Besides we have a limited work power and have lots of concrete
scalability issues (e.g. around morphisms) that we have to work on.
> I am not saying that it would ''necessarily'' fail. However, a local
test
> ''may'' fail. And rather than repeating the same local test over and
over in the `TestSuite` of any category, I'd like to have ''one'' test
> (say, a doctest of `sage.categories.categories_with_axiom`) that takes
into
> account the whole digraph and is thus reliable.
Oh, I forgot on point in my other message. Promised I am not
commenting anymore on that after. An advantage of a local test is that
a category writer will typically run local TestSuite's immediately and
global tests only from time to time.
> Partially. A concistency checker is something for here. A database-
metaclass
> turning the checker into a productive tool to simplify the
implementation of
> new categories-with-axiom is for later.
Ok. I am yet to be convinced about the very relevance of the checker
(since I believe there is no local/global consistency
required). However, as a side effect, by working on it you revealed
unrelated little bugs. Besides it's a small project and you are the
one spending time on it. So if this makes you more comfortable, go
ahead.
Cheers,
Nicolas
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10963#comment:439>
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.
