#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:22 rws]:
> “The perfect is the enemy of the good”
> Please refrain from aditional feature requests or open-ended discussion
about alternative implementations.
The whole point of my argument was to highlight that we should not
introduce more inconsistency, if possible. I agree that the ticket fixes
this for `RIF`; primarily because the author happened to use it and
discovered one place where it is inconsistent with the behavior of other
functions.
I have taught a course with Sage, and I have seen students struggle with
the way things are implemented. The pain points were not whether something
is slow or incorrect - it was mostly about the fact that the behavior
varied wildly depending on what field the students were working on. Now,
try to explain to non-computer science students why things work different
in reals, integers, and rationals, what is the difference between a
symbolic expression and a symbolic function, etc.
As developers, we have got used to the way certain things work, and we
tend to automatically write code that behaves properly. If you really want
to find more such inconsistencies, then ask a person who is unfamiliar
with Sage and observe what they write, and how they expect some newly
written code to behave.
> If you want the patch written differently, your suggestion should be a
clear and actionable request.
I was quite clear in stating that I sought the opinion of someone
knowledgeable about the `factorial` implementation. I didn't implement
that function and I do not know why it is implemented the way it is.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/15003#comment:23>
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.
