#19941: Rename rings.finite_rings.constructor to finite_field_constructor
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
       Reporter:         |        Owner:
  ncohen                 |       Status:  needs_review
           Type:         |    Milestone:  sage-7.1
  defect                 |   Resolution:
       Priority:  major  |    Merged in:
      Component:         |    Reviewers:
  finite rings           |  Work issues:
       Keywords:         |       Commit:
        Authors:         |  42718e8d42381ba299eae472417402719577795e
  Nathann Cohen          |     Stopgaps:
Report Upstream:  N/A    |
         Branch:         |
  public/19941           |
   Dependencies:         |
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------

Comment (by ncohen):

 > Second, I don't see any benefit to making this change.  Finite fields
 are examples of finite rings; what's wrong with the current name?

 I have less and less patience for people playing dumb.

 Would a file named 'object.pyx' still get no reaction from you? Finite
 Rings are objects too. It is much too general and thus becomes misleading:
 that's what is wrong.

 Look at the filename: it tells that you can expect the file contains *the*
 constructor of finite rings (there is not even a plural to `constructor`).
 Do you see `FiniteRing` inside? No. `IntegerModRing` (also a ring) is not
 even inside, it sits in its own file, and neither are other finite rings.
 Inside of that file, what you expect to see is a class named `FiniteRing`,
 and absolutely nothing else. Why would you object to having the
 constructor of finite fields in a file that bears its name? Do you also
 object to having `IntegerModRing` in `integer_mod_ring.py`? If not, by
 which sorcery?

 Inside of `rings/finite_rings/` you have 5 files in `finite_field_*`. How
 odd would it be for the file containing their main constructor to have the
 same prefix?

 > First, I intend to implement finite rings that are not finite fields,

 And you will be welcome to create a new file for them when you will get to
 work.

 Nathann

--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/19941#comment:6>
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.

Reply via email to