#10963: Axioms and more functorial constructions
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: nthiery | Owner: stumpc5
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_review
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: To be merged
public/ticket/10963-doc- | simultaneously with #15801
distributive | Commit:
Dependencies: #11224, #8327, | 16ec0f394ada4e9e101259934a03d1d6175fc727
#10193, #12895, #14516, #14722, | Stopgaps:
#13589, #14471, #15069, #15094, |
#11688, #13394, #15150, #15506, |
#15757, #15759, #15919 |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by darij):
I'm done with my sightseeing tour through this branch. I am not calling it
a review because that would imply some kind of systematic approach (which
I never followed), but I hope it was nevertheless of use. My general
impression is that the code introduced in this ticket is rather good, and
it is definitely a worthy addition to Sage (once speed regressions are
fixed) -- among other things, it fixes two scary and still mysterious bugs
(#15475), which is not even advertised; the doc is now very readable. This
does not mean that all issues I have brought up in this discussion are
resolved or invalid; I am hoping that the remainder of them gets dealt
with in other places (#15647 and #15927 are two things that come into my
mind, but I'd also want a task for making examples for the new
functionality). It seems to me that a majority of them are design flaws
and quality problems inherited from the old code (which is, frankly, bad
as far as I can tell -- but I know few places in Sage where old code is
good). Nicolas had good reasons to be annoyed by me raising this dust in a
ticket not really related -- it's just that for me, there was no
difference between old and new code, since I was seeing most of
src/sage/categories for the first time. Many thanks to Nicolas and Simon
for the quick and thorough reponses and explanations on my edits.
There's one final commit waiting for one of you, and one final question:
is src/sage/categories/examples/hopf_algebras_with_basis.py still up-to-
date? I'm not advocating for deletion, just asking if it is misleading in
any way. While it shares much code with the now-removed group algebra
examples and also is not in `GroupAlgebras`, it isn't necessarily wrong
(noone said it had to be a GroupAlgebra anyway).
Thank you once again, and here's hoping for a speedy merge...
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10963#comment:668>
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.
