#15820: Implement sequences of bounded integers
--------------------------------------------+------------------------
Reporter: SimonKing | Owner:
Type: enhancement | Status: new
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-6.2
Component: algebra | Resolution:
Keywords: sequence bounded integer | Merged in:
Authors: | Reviewers:
Report Upstream: N/A | Work issues:
Branch: | Commit:
Dependencies: | Stopgaps:
--------------------------------------------+------------------------
Comment (by SimonKing):
Replying to [comment:23 ncohen]:
> > Why? It should be a replacement for tuples (thus, low-level), but it
should ''ideally'' be (close to) a drop-in replacement (thus, it doesn't
matter whether one uses it by mistake).
>
> Why do you want it to inherit from tuple ?
By analogy to `Sequence_generic` (which inherits from `list`):
{{{
sage: S = Sequence([1,2,3])
sage: type(S)
<class 'sage.structure.sequence.Sequence_generic'>
sage: type(S).mro()
[sage.structure.sequence.Sequence_generic,
sage.structure.sage_object.SageObject,
list,
object]
}}}
> Well, somehow that's already what we do with graph backends. We have a
Generic Backend, extended twice in Dense Graphs and Sparse Graphs. And
all the constants needed by the data structures are stored in the
corresponding files.
No, that's a different situation. If you have a sequence `S1` of integers
bounded by `B1` and a sequence `S2` of integers bounded by `B2` then the
constants for `S1` are different from the constants of `S2`. So, it is not
really a "global" constant that is shared by all instances of a certain
data structure (and could thus be put into a file), but when you do, for
example, `for x in B1` then you'll need ''different'' constants than when
you do `for x in B2`.
So, these constants are not shared by all sequences, but by all sequence
that share the same bound. Thus, it seems natural (to me, at least) to
have one object `O(B)` that is shared by all sequences of bound `B`, so
that `O(B)` provides the constants that belong to `B`.
Sure, `O(B)` could be written in C as well. But why not making it a
parent, when all what we do is letting each sequence have a pointer to
`O(B)`?
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/15820#comment:24>
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.
