#18036: I should not be symbolic
---------------------------------+------------------------
Reporter: vdelecroix | Owner:
Type: defect | Status: new
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-6.6
Component: number fields | Resolution:
Keywords: | Merged in:
Authors: | Reviewers:
Report Upstream: N/A | Work issues:
Branch: | Commit:
Dependencies: | Stopgaps:
---------------------------------+------------------------
Comment (by vdelecroix):
Replying to [comment:12 mmezzarobba]:
> Replying to [comment:11 mmezzarobba]:
> > Replying to [comment:10 vdelecroix]:
> > > I do not quite understand why you need the creation of a new class
of `NumberFieldQQi`... is that only for the special method you need in the
element class?
> >
> > I don't remember, it could be that the reason no longer exists due to
later changes.
>
> One reason was that having separate classes makes it easy to test if we
are in the special case of QQ[i] using `isinstance`. In the case of the
parent class, this is convenient when specifying coercions, for instance.
Anyway this will be instantiated at startup so why not keeping one
instance `QQi` in `sage.rings.number_field.number_field`? (like we have
for `ZZ`, `QQ`, etc). Then you can test identity when testing coercions.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/18036#comment:13>
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.
