#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 pbruin):
Replying to [comment:477 nthiery]:
> > I see. How about
> > {{{
> > summand_projection() -> cartesian_projection()
> > summand_split() -> cartesian_factors()
> > summands() -> cartesian_factors()
> > }}}
> > In particular, the fact that the last two are equal would be nicely
consistent with the fact that we already have `cartesian_product()` both
for parents and for elements.
>
> Sounds reasonable to me. If nobody suggests a better suggestion now,
please proceed!
I made these changes in a new branch,
`u/pbruin/10963-rename_summand_methods` (based on this one). It
deprecates the `summand_*` methods of Cartesian products of sets, but not
of `CombinatorialFreeModule`s (since products and sums of those are the
same).
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10963#comment:479>
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.
