#8800: Doctest coverage of categories - numerous coercion fixes
--------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
Reporter: SimonKing | Owner: Simon King
Type: defect | Status: needs_work
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-4.6.1
Component: categories | Keywords: categories doctests
Author: Simon King | Upstream: N/A
Reviewer: | Merged:
Work_issues: |
--------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
Changes (by lftabera):
* status: needs_review => needs_work
Comment:
There is quite a lot of work here. Thanks!
Could you please coordinate this patch with #10318? That ticket already
has a positive review, is related to #8807 and is incompatible with #8800.
I have not read the code yet, but about problem 17. In which I
participated partially I am not sure to like the solution.
{{{
sage: K.<r4> = NumberField(x^4-2)
sage: L1.<r2_1> = NumberField(x^2-2, embedding = r4**2)
sage: L2.<r2_2> = NumberField(x^2-2, embedding = -r4**2)
sage: r2_1+r2_2 # indirect doctest
0
sage: (r2_1+r2_2).parent() is L1
True
sage: (r2_2+r2_1).parent() is L2
True
}}}
Now I realise that there was some dicussion in sage-nt. Are there more
examples in which the parent depends on the order of operands? I
understand that this happen only where the parents are canonically
isomorphic.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/8800#comment:37>
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 post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-trac?hl=en.
