#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 ncohen):
Hellooooo !!
> How could such syntax look like? Of course, we can have a separate class
`ABs`, and then let both `As.B` and `Bs.A` point to it. But even when you
write down the name `ABs`, you already have a choice to do---after all,
why don't you chose `BAs` instead of `ABs`.
Hmmmm... Well, I understand *NOTHING* of what the current syntax currently
is, so I probably cannot help. The point is that in the end, the exact
NAME of the class you create does not really matter much, as what is
important is how you access it. You probably never instanciate the class
itself (unless it has a sensible name of its own which is not a sequence
of axioms). Thus it would be cool if you could just implement it wherever
you wish, and have one of its fields be `_my_set_of_axioms =
set("Finite","Green")`. There is no specific order to respect anyway as
the only technical information you provide is a set. And the spanning tree
thing shouldn't even be the coder's problem. No reason why he should even
be aware of its existence, as he only wants to implement a category with
some given axioms.
> Well, this is my suggestion for the future.
Oh. That looks like the kind of interface stuff that should be settled
from the start. Everything which is "for the future" rarely gets
implemented `:-P`
> Really? I always thought of ''rooted'' trees (and that's what we have
here) as being directed.
Well the problem here is that your edges are directed.
Nathann
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10963#comment:472>
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.
