#6097: [with patch, needs review] Implements a mantra for declaring abstract
methods
-------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Reporter: nthiery | Owner: nthiery
Type: enhancement | Status: assigned
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-4.0.2
Component: misc | Keywords: abstract methods
Reviewer: | Author: nthiery
Merged: |
-------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Comment(by ncalexan):
> My point is: the issue is non trivial enough that it requires more
experience and further debate (not just the two of us). And we do not have
the time for this right now.
Wait, what is the rush?
> So what? The class of this object is broken in the first place.
I think there is a significant difference between broken *functionality*
and an object in the system that cannot be *interrogated* by the system.
> On the other hand, experience with MuPAD, tells that having early errors
for such situations is much safer (note that a bound method need not be
called immediately; instead it can be passed down to other functions and
wreak havoc at a distant place later).
This is often true. Can you guarantee that such a poisoned object can
only be created by a user who "works hard" to do so? If that's the case
then I remove whatever objections I have.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/6097#comment:9>
Sage <http://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 post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-trac?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
