#14982: When a parent is equipped with an embedding, consider coercions that
don't
go through the embedding
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: mmezzarobba | Owner:
Type: defect | Status: needs_review
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-6.4
Component: coercion | Resolution:
Keywords: embedding | Merged in:
Authors: Marc Mezzarobba | Reviewers:
Report Upstream: N/A | Work issues:
Branch: | Commit:
u/mmezzarobba/14982-coerce_embeddings|
f32b52f4176684d57e4e6b83f80c2c553ffcc8eb
Dependencies: | Stopgaps:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by mmezzarobba):
Replying to [comment:41 vdelecroix]:
> I have a question related to number fields (in particular #18226 and
#17830). I do want a direct coercion `number field -> RIF` based on the
(future) `_mpfr_` method of elements. Right now, the route is long as the
discoevery algorithm tells me that I need to do `number field -> RLF ->
RIF` (and actually there is `QQbar` hidden in the middle). I guess that
the proposition here would solve this issue! That would be fantastic.
I don't know if the changes in this ticket would suffice to discover the
right coercion path, but at least they make it ''possible'' to select a
coercion path that doesn't use the embedding even when there is another
path that uses it!
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/14982#comment:42>
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.
