#18756: Use coerce actions in the category framework
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: SimonKing | Owner:
Type: defect | Status: needs_work
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-6.8
Component: coercion | Resolution:
Keywords: cython, coercion, | Merged in:
actions, categories | Reviewers: Travis Scrimshaw
Authors: Simon King | Work issues:
Report Upstream: N/A | Commit:
Branch: | a5bdbf6f85ea0d732a13ebc7d8e91dbd28c92ef0
u/SimonKing/combinatorial_free_module_cython_coercion| Stopgaps:
Dependencies: |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by SimonKing):
Meanwhile I think it is essential to ascend the MRO resp. the category
hierarchy.
Rationale: The plan for #18758 is to let `Magmas().parent_class` provide a
`_get_action_` method returning a multiplicative action of self on self,
while `AdditiveMagmas().parent_class._get_action_` yields an additive
action of self on self. Hence, in order to get a ring structure, it is
essential that `Parent.get_action` has access to both categorical
`_get_action_` methods.
To be fixed (here or in #18758?) is the issue with wrongly initialised
parents. By this, I mean `isinstance(P, C.parent_class) and not
isinstance(P, P.category().parent_class)` for a proper super-category C of
`P.category()`.
One could easily work around, but this would involve a little slow-down.
So, better fix the issue rather than working around!
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/18756#comment:40>
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.
