#19462: LinearCode.is_projective
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
Reporter: | Owner:
ncohen | Status: needs_review
Type: | Milestone: sage-6.10
enhancement | Resolution:
Priority: major | Merged in:
Component: | Reviewers:
coding theory | Work issues:
Keywords: | Commit:
Authors: | 4a8d9701a24ab0437ff4e8fbf517bb47443ef425
Nathann Cohen | Stopgaps:
Report Upstream: N/A |
Branch: |
public/19462 |
Dependencies: |
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
Comment (by vdelecroix):
Replying to [comment:11 ncohen]:
> > Anyway, you can do
> > {{{
> > if not self.base_ring() in Fields():
> > raise NotImplementedError
> > }}}
> > And if your field is `GF(2)` it should even be faster.
>
> Why on earth would you ask me to degrade my code to manage fields only,
when it is meant to handle general rings and *you* tell me that rings will
be supported by LinearCode eventually?
Because checking duplicates in a list of size `|size of the field| x
nrows` is longer than in a list of size `nrows`.
I have no idea whether linear code over rings will be one day supported...
ticket #6452 is just a first step. And I was just mentioning it to make
some advertisement. But nobody cares.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/19462#comment:12>
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.
