#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 | 977a940beba7ed96722a24e36cd81595336350ef
Dependencies: #11224, #8327, | Stopgaps:
#10193, #12895, #14516, #14722, |
#13589, #14471, #15069, #15094, |
#11688, #13394, #15150, #15506, |
#15757, #15759 |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by SimonKing):
Replying to [comment:556 vbraun]:
> There is still no accidental clash. If you inherit from C and D then you
get exactly what you ask for.
I think the point Nicolas wants to make is: Sure, you can choose the base
classes so that you either inherit from C or inherit from D; however,
there is ''no choice'' that is '''semantically''' (not syntactically) a
correct inheritance, if C.foo and D.foo have distinct specifications: The
common subclass of C and D will either violate the specification of D.foo
or of C.foo.
That said: In such a situation, you don't want to inherit simultaneously
from C and D.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10963#comment:557>
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.
