#15331: Do not try to create embedded number field morphisms for non-embedded
number fields
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: SimonKing | Owner:
Type: defect | Status: needs_work
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-6.2
Component: number fields | Resolution:
Keywords: | Merged in:
Authors: Simon King, Marc | Reviewers: Marc Mezzarobba,
Mezzarobba | Jean-Pierre Flori
Report Upstream: N/A | Work issues:
Branch: | Commit:
u/jpflori/ticket/15331 | d84620d36226927a6e1a13aad98baf8b999daf3c
Dependencies: | Stopgaps:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by jpflori):
Replying to [comment:11 mmezzarobba]:
> Replying to [comment:9 jpflori]:
> > I've just added some doc about which ambient field is tried by
default.
>
> Hmm, `CDF` is actually tried ''before'' the algebraic closure of the
pushout, contrary to what the description you wrote suggests. (That's what
Simon's patch was doing, and I tried to leave the results of successful
calls unchanged in mine.) I think we should either swap the corresponding
items in the docstring, or try the algebraic closure first if this order
makes more sense.
>
Oops, in fact, I took back the description with what I built on top of the
original Simon branch, and there I tried CDF last.
It seemed to make more sense to me to test it after the algebraic closure
which a priori is smaller.
So I'd be in favor of changing the current behavior and not the doc.
> > If nobody feels concerned as I do about the uncatched errors (maybe
the coercion framework already deals with them in a correct way, it just
too late to try to remember about that), the let's get this merged.
>
> Since no one seems to know in what scenarios these except clauses are
supposed to be used (and the patches + tickets they come from do not make
it clear to me), I thought we could remove them for now and add them back
later, with tests triggering them, if necessary. But please feel free to
change back the code to catch more exceptions if you disagree.
I agree with that plan.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/15331#comment:13>
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/d/optout.
