#18529: Topological manifolds: basics
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
       Reporter:  egourgoulhon       |        Owner:  egourgoulhon
           Type:  enhancement        |       Status:  needs_review
       Priority:  major              |    Milestone:  sage-6.10
      Component:  geometry           |   Resolution:
       Keywords:  topological        |    Merged in:
  manifolds                          |    Reviewers:
        Authors:  Eric Gourgoulhon   |  Work issues:
Report Upstream:  N/A                |       Commit:
         Branch:                     |  252e616cc053a3b76ee563282222507cd78c9fb8
  public/manifolds/top_manif_basics  |     Stopgaps:
   Dependencies:  #18175             |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------

Comment (by egourgoulhon):

 Replying to [comment:27 tscrim]:
 >
 > - I don't quite agree with checking `self._field == RR` for real charts
 as the precision should not matter. I would check `isinstance(self._field,
 RealField)` instead. Granted, we probably should have a function that
 checks against all known real field implementations...
 >
 > - In a similar vein, I don't like the input of `'real'` to `RR` (and
 `'complex'` to `CC`). I would make the user be explicit about what they
 want unless you are doing to do some special handling to make this pass
 special arguments to an underlying `SR` implementation.

 Actually, the precision is not used in the current setting, so neither
 `RR` nor `RealField` is really necessary. `RR` was used as a substitute
 for the true real field, which cannot be represented in the computer.
 Looking further, why not using Sage's `RealLazyField` for this? It seems
 that it is intended to be closer to the true '''R'''. One drawback is that
 we have (for the moment)
 {{{
 sage: RLF in Fields().Topological()
 False
 }}}
 So `RLF` cannot be passed to the manifold constructor.

 The same considerations apply of course to `ComplexLazyField`.

--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/18529#comment:53>
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.

Reply via email to