#15801: Categories over a base ring category
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: nthiery | Owner:
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_review
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-6.2
Component: categories | Resolution:
Keywords: | Merged in:
Authors: Nicolas M. Thiéry | Reviewers: Travis Scrimshaw
Report Upstream: N/A | Work issues:
Branch: | Commit:
public/categories/over-a-base- | 2114d54f98b80c9542b61051600d9ff686f99f13
ring-category-15801 | Stopgaps:
Dependencies: #10963, #16275 |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Changes (by nthiery):
* dependencies: #10963 => #10963, #16275
Comment:
I pushed my proposal to #16275.
Thanks to the use of ``X in category`` for sanity checks in Hom, we
can still handle things like:
{{{
Hom(ZZ['x'], ZZ['x'], Modules(ZZ))
}}}
even if ``ZZ['x']`` is now in the category of ``Modules(Rings())``
(which is not a subcategory of ``Modules(ZZ)``).
I'll work tomorrow on double checking everything once #16275 is merged
in this ticket. I might end up preferring my hack rather than the
_Hom_ hack, because the whole _Hom_ protocol is not quite
satisfactory, and I'd rather avoid it when we can.
What do you think?
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/15801#comment:37>
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.
