#10963: More functorial constructions
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: nthiery | Owner: stumpc5
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_info
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-6.2
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-doc- | Commit:
distributive | 7ab3103368e46d33f37e135a9eb09a1e16a029a7
Dependencies: #11224, #8327, | Stopgaps:
#10193, #12895, #14516, #14722, |
#13589, #14471, #15069, #15094, |
#11688, #13394, #15150, #15506, |
#15757, #15759 |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by vbraun):
Replying to [comment:539 nthiery]:
> (1) I believe that, when implementing a category with axiom Cs().A(),
> enforcing that the nested class be Cs.A is a feature (it's a
> simple rule, it's consistent both with OO practice
No it is not OO practice, in fact it is a smack in the face of normal OO
practice. This is and remains my main objection to the current syntax:
Cs.A and Ds.A are supposed to be totally independent **unless** you choose
to tie them together. First of all OO is about separation and
encapsulation, and you violate that basic principle. You keep ignoring me
and reiterate that its "just OO" when it is clearly not. Can you please
address this issue?
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10963#comment:541>
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.
