#15003: calling factorials of RIF
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: dkrenn | Owner:
Type: defect | Status: positive_review
Priority: minor | Milestone: sage-6.2
Component: numerical | Resolution:
Keywords: factorial RIF | Merged in:
RealIntervalField calling | Reviewers: Ralf Stephan
inconsistent beginner | Work issues:
Authors: amitjamadagni | Commit:
Report Upstream: N/A | fac03faa1b344513c0242b6f3e3c0022809fbe34
Branch: | Stopgaps:
u/rws/ticket/15003 |
Dependencies: |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by ppurka):
Replying to [comment:20 rws]:
> But that is an enhancement while this is a defect. And this is not only
independent from that but the refactoring will also benefit from this
ticket being separate and not waited on until eternity.
>
> Please see #16166.
Thanks for opening the new ticket. This ticket is also an enhancement to
`RIF`. And the implementation here is not complete because the same change
should happen to, for example, `CIF`. Even after the current ticket, we
still have inconsistent behavior depending on whether the element is in
`RIF` or `RR` or `ZZ`, etc.
For example, suppose you run a long program or sequence of functions where
the output happens to become an element of `QQ`:
{{{
sage: a = QQ(2) # suppose "a" is got as an output of a function
sage: a.factorial()
...
AttributeError: 'sage.rings.rational.Rational' object has no attribute
'factorial'
sage: a = ZZ(2) # for another input to the function, output is an element
of ZZ
sage: a.factorial()
2
}}}
From the end user point of view, the behavior is very inconsistent and
depends on whether after all the computations you get back an element from
`QQ` or `ZZ`. This needs to be fixed more generally, and this is why I
said I wasn't ready to give it positive review in comment:11
My question was: should we fix all these different fields just by patching
them one by one, OR is there a general way to fix all the fields at one
go?
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/15003#comment:21>
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.
