#10513: Coercion and category framework for modules
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: SimonKing | Owner: robertwb
Type: defect | Status: needs_review
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-6.4
Component: coercion | Resolution:
Keywords: coercion, | Merged in:
category framework, modules | Reviewers:
Authors: Simon King, Peter | Work issues:
Bruin | Commit:
Report Upstream: N/A | 2d7f0759c12fbeeb45d42c2d6160f8d925a22252
Branch: | Stopgaps:
u/pbruin/10513-coercion_and_categories_for_modules|
Dependencies: #16507 |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by jpflori):
Replying to [comment:26 pbruin]:> > Any ticket opened to implement such a
coercion?
> I'm not sure if this is desired; the absence of these particular maps
may have been an (unintended) consequence of implementing the new coercion
model in the simplest possible way, but it may have been intentional as
well, I don't remember.
I was asking because it used to be possible to use the `in` keyword when
the classes where using the old coercion model.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10513#comment:27>
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.
