#16238: Correct call convention for isogenies
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: sbesnier | Owner:
Type: defect | Status: needs_review
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-6.2
Component: elliptic curves | Resolution:
Keywords: call isogeny | Merged in:
Authors: Sébastien Besnier | Reviewers:
Report Upstream: N/A | Work issues:
Branch: | Commit:
u/sbesnier/ticket/16238 | fbe7647092fba74971fe5e1e9c0cbe82e19d02ae
Dependencies: #12880 | Stopgaps:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by pbruin):
Replying to [comment:6 defeo]:
> > Currently, we can call `phi((1,0))`, but no `phi(1,0)` (in the same
way we can call `E(1,0)`). Do you think it would be usefull to implement
that?
>
> I don't like it. Even `phi((1,0))` is distasteful in my opinion.
The notation `phi((1, 0))` presumably works automatically because `(1, 0)`
is an object that can be coerced into `E`. It may not be the most
expressive notation, but I see no reason not to keep it. I think
extending this to allow `phi(1, 0)` is unnecessary.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/16238#comment:7>
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.
