#18529: Topological manifolds: basics
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: egourgoulhon | Owner: egourgoulhon
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_info
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-7.0
Component: geometry | Resolution:
Keywords: topological | Merged in:
manifolds | Reviewers: Travis Scrimshaw
Authors: Eric Gourgoulhon, | Work issues:
Travis Scrimshaw | Commit:
Report Upstream: N/A | 3cd03a48d847e12745ed8c25b23f19db141c179a
Branch: | Stopgaps:
public/manifolds/top_manif_basics |
Dependencies: #18175 |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by tscrim):
I think if we are really going to go through with what might be some hard
work and separate out the subset features, we should just do this:
{{{
AbstractSet AbstractSubsetMixin
| | | |
| / | |
TopologicalManifold / | |
| \_____ / / |
| \ / / |
| TopologicalSubmanifold / |
DifferentiableManifold / /
| \__ / /
| \ / /
| DifferentiableSubmanifold /
OpenInterval /
| \__________ ____________/
| \ /
| OpenSubinterval
RealLine
}}}
It is what I was hoping to obtain, but had trouble separating out the
subset portion because there still is a small diamond problem with
`Parent`. Which is why `AbstractSubset` would have to be a mixin, both in
this hierarchy and Hierarchy-3,4 to be effective.
It does seem like perhaps Hierarchy-2 would be the best since there is so
few tests for `if self._manifold is self`. The biggest trouble I have with
this is the separations of concerns: that it makes it somewhat harder to
separate these classes later if they start needing different attributes.
We also have well-established code in Sage for which there is a different
class for subobjects.
Ah hell, perhaps we should just revert back to Hierarchy-2 to keep the
simplicity. I'm starting to wonder if there is perhaps a more fundamental
issue in that we are trying to be too close to the mathematical
definitions rather than be programmers, which could potentially be a
complete rewrite of most things. However, we have working code, which is
always better than no code. Anyways, I'm going to shutup now and just ask
do you want me to handle the revert or are you willing to do it?
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/18529#comment:112>
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 https://groups.google.com/group/sage-trac.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
