#15247: Introduce a baseclass for singletons
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: SimonKing | Owner:
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_review
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-6.3
Component: performance | Resolution:
Keywords: | Merged in:
Authors: Simon King | Reviewers: Marc Mezzarobba,
Report Upstream: N/A | Travis Scrimshaw
Branch: | Work issues:
public/singleton_class-15247 | Commit:
Dependencies: | 0d78737de4a8f364903da0998f02fc9e803c2b0f
| Stopgaps:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by SimonKing):
Replying to [comment:32 tscrim]:
> Perhaps Simon can comment at some point, but here are my thoughts.
Well, at some point I should perhaps look at the code/doc again...
> I've also made some other misc review changes. However I have a
question, should this be in `sage/misc` or in `sage/structure` since it
feels more like a structural piece of Sage?
At #15820 we had a similar discussion, and Nicolas has convinced me with
the following: If the structure being implemented is Sage-specific
(examples: elements, parents) then it goes into sage.structure. If the
structure being implemented would make sense outside of Sage, then it goes
into sage.misc (examples: classcall metaclass, sequences of bounded
integers as in #15820).
And I'd say that a singleton baseclass makes sense outside of Sage, hence,
should go into sage.misc.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/15247#comment:33>
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.
