#16340: Infrastructure for modelling full subcategories
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: nthiery | Owner:
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_review
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-6.3
Component: categories | Resolution:
Keywords: full | Merged in:
subcategories, homset | Reviewers:
Authors: Nicolas M. Thiéry | Work issues:
Report Upstream: N/A | Commit:
Branch: | 2f2d09bec3a2e77021670d996abe2dd399fc63ec
u/nthiery/categories/full- | Stopgaps:
subcategories-16340 |
Dependencies: |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by nthiery):
Replying to [comment:8 pbruin]:
> For me the main point to think about is the terminology "structure
category".
> It would be nice if the name made it slightly clearer that this property
is not so much about the category itself as about its relation to its
supercategories.
Definitely!
> (Some random alternative names for `is_structure_category()`:
`adds_structure()`? `is_augmented_category()`? `is_enriched_category()`?)
Also, instead of an "is_..." method, we could name the method something
like `additional_structure` and have it return something possibly
meaningfull, like "*" for magmas or "+" for additive magmas, and None if
there is none. It would still evaluate appropriately to True/False in
boolean context.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/16340#comment:9>
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.
