#6079: modernize base inclusion morphism of relative number fields
---------------------------+------------------------------------------------
Reporter: ncalexan | Owner: was
Type: enhancement | Status: new
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-4.0.1
Component: number theory | Keywords: base inclusion morphism relative
number field
---------------------------+------------------------------------------------
Comment(by ncalexan):
For point 1, removing the "map" at the end is not hard but really isn't
worth it. Notice that I'm defining _repr_type_; it's the base class's
_repr_ that's adding map/morphism. Just not worth it.
For point 2, subfield and subfield_containing do not do the same thing.
subfield guarantees that your element is a generator of the returned
field; subfield_containing does no such thing. Also, subfield_containing
is not yet implemented for relative fields, while subfield is (And, I
think, would mean different things in that case.) Finally, having a
single element vs. list of elements option causes problems -- it's
annoying to use with iterators, for example. (Although I rule out using
iterators precisely to catch errors when you give me a single element.)
Thanks for the quick review, can I have another?
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/6079#comment:3>
Sage <http://sagemath.org/>
Sage - Open Source Mathematical Software: Building the Car Instead of
Reinventing the Wheel
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-trac" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-trac?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
