#20028: sorting of number field elements
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: cremona | Owner:
Type: defect | Status: new
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-7.1
Component: number fields | Resolution:
Keywords: sort number field | Merged in:
elements | Reviewers:
Authors: | Work issues:
Report Upstream: N/A | Commit:
Branch: u/cremona/20028 | f9f6b99b09fc6c5183d2fe7a82e4f27e957f059c
Dependencies: | Stopgaps:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by cremona):
Replying to [comment:17 nbruin]:
> Thanks! Personally, I dislike the `try: L.sort() except
NotImplementedError: pass` blocks. Those sorts shouldn't have been there
in the first place. I think people should just deal with the fact that
some objects do not come in any particular order. It does seem the easiest
way to ensure that most doctests do not change, which is the easier way of
getting this stuff in. So I think we'll have to live with it.
I agree that these are ugly. We can either try to get the current patch
reviewed, or look to see how bad things would be if we were to remove
those. I will start on that for elliptic curves, but do not want to delay
progress.
>
> It's sad that python first had `__cmp__` which made it impossible to
have eq/ne without pretending to have ordering.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/20028#comment:21>
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.
