#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:482 vbraun]:
> I'm agreeing with Simon more and more that we should separate out the
whole code for finding the normal form for the catogory-with-axiom. Right
now its buried in the whole category framework, you can't doctest it
independently,
Agreed (though, implementing arithmetic on some objects in the class
for those objects is not totally unusual).
> and it requires duplicate information.
Right (though only to support the notation FiniteGroups() which we may
want to deprecate anyway; see the discussion in the documentation).
> Its also pretty hard to follow.
Please read the documentation and tell me if it clarifies things out.
> ... We can easily have some syntactic sugar to make the registration
process automatic for inner classes.
> ... alternative proposal ...
> I'm currently working on a proof-of-concept code, will post that when
its finished.
Thanks! I am glad you are investigating improvements on the current
infrastructure. Some small comments:
- Please include in your proof-of-concept an example showcasing that
we can properly support lazy importing categories with axioms.
- Ah, another thing about the above potential notations: having
FiniteTest1 inherit from Test1 as idiom suggests that there is an
*Is A* relation between the category of finite test1s and the
category of test1s, which is wrong. Similarly, having FiniteTest1
inherit from axioms.Finite suggests that FiniteTest1 is an axiom,
when it actually is a category. I am not saying that those
violations of the basic rules of object oriented programming are
show stoppers if they bring convenient notations. But this is to be
put in balance with the inconvenients of the current
infrastructure. Or just fixed by exploring variants of the above
notations.
But back to the main point. As you said, the would-be
category-with-axiom manager should support the current nested class
syntax. So, migrating over code using the current infrastructure
should be easy.
Hence, the most important question is: should the experimentation and
implementation of this manager be for this ticket or for a follow-up
ticket.
Nicolas
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10963#comment:483>
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.
