#18259: comparison of symbolic functions
-----------------------------+------------------------
Reporter: dkrenn | Owner:
Type: defect | Status: new
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-6.7
Component: symbolics | Resolution:
Keywords: | Merged in:
Authors: | Reviewers:
Report Upstream: N/A | Work issues:
Branch: | Commit:
Dependencies: | Stopgaps:
-----------------------------+------------------------
Comment (by nbruin):
Replying to [comment:3 vdelecroix]:
> Why not modifying the comparison codes for Callable function ring?
[...]
> I definitely would like to be able to do `f+1` without an error!
The second would probably still work if the integers still coerce into
`cSR` (and since `cSR` inherits from `SR` it would be a lot of work to
break that). But it's a direct consequence that if `f+1` works then `bool(
cSR(1) == 1)` will be true, basically because `cSR(1)-1` is then 0
(instead of an error), which is what happens in the example in the ticket
too.
If you're going to change the comparison for the callable function ring
you'd be letting `cSR` behave completely different from other sage
parents. It would also be a lot of work because currently comparison on
`cSR` is just inherited from `SR`.
The implementation of comparison tests on `SR` only comes into play after
the coercion framework has had its way with the arguments.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/18259#comment:4>
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.
