#17694: zero vs zero_element / one vs one_element
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: vdelecroix | Owner:
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_review
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-6.5
Component: algebra | Resolution:
Keywords: | Merged in:
Authors: Vincent Delecroix | Reviewers:
Report Upstream: N/A | Work issues:
Branch: | Commit:
u/vdelecroix/17694 | c0a0bbbe64c8524c98c88f342c62cc426c604260
Dependencies: | Stopgaps:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by vdelecroix):
Replying to [comment:4 ncohen]:
Right. I guess that the problem is that `Rings` is '''not''' a sub
category of additive monoid and multiplicative monoid! I really do not
want to fix it within categories as there is an interplay with Nicolas
axioms.
I will add a commit that takes care of `LazyPowerSeries` and have a look
at other rings which do not inherit from `sage.rings.ring.Ring`.
Replying to [comment:5 jdemeyer]:
> Replying to [ticket:17694 vdelecroix]:
> > To avoid duplication we also upgrade slightly the category of
polyhedra.
> Please explain...
The polyhedra do have a sum (Minkowski sum) and a product (cartesian
product). The method `zero_element` was implemented but the category was
!AdditiveMagmas. So I switched to !AdditiveMonoids (i.e. Magma + unit) and
only rename the method `zero_element()` to `zero()`. And the
!ParentMethods of the category takes care of the deprecation.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/17694#comment:6>
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.
