#15947: Weaken types for _rmul_ and _lmul_
-------------------------------+------------------------
Reporter: tscrim | Owner: tscrim
Type: enhancement | Status: new
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-7.4
Component: coercion | Resolution:
Keywords: | Merged in:
Authors: | Reviewers:
Report Upstream: N/A | Work issues:
Branch: | Commit:
Dependencies: | Stopgaps:
-------------------------------+------------------------
Comment (by jdemeyer):
Replying to [comment:13 SimonKing]:
> I think you are right, "any object" would be too broad.
That was not the reason: "any object" does not work since code often needs
the parent of the second argument of `_lmul_` (and only an `Element` has a
parent).
Unlike `_mul_`, it seems that the parents of the arguments of `_lmul_` and
`_rmul_` are not defined.
> If you wanna implement an algebraic structure, you should at least
inherit from `Element`.
True, but besides the point. How your algebraic structure is implemented
does not say anything about the API of calling `_lmul_`.
I have an eventual goal in mind of merging all the various `*Element`
classes which will then automatically solve this ticket too.
--
Ticket URL: <https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/15947#comment:14>
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.
