#10525: move algebraic subschemes of toric varieties to their rightful places
----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
Reporter: vbraun | Owner: AlexGhitza
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_info
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-4.6.2
Component: algebraic geometry | Keywords:
Author: Volker Braun | Upstream: N/A
Reviewer: | Merged:
Work_issues: |
----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
Changes (by novoselt):
* status: needs_review => needs_info
* type: defect => enhancement
Comment:
I knew how affine/projective classes were packed into modules but
deliberately violated the convention for toric varieties. Reasons:
1. Old modules are not documented/doctested, so it was easier to make
sure that new stuff does follow requirements when it is in completely new
files.
1. Old classes should be switched from old parents and methods to the new
coercion framework and there may be some redesign in the process, so it is
also good to keep them more separated.
1. Perhaps the most important: toric varieties/subvarieties/morphisms are
more related to each other then to affine or projective analogs, in
particular it makes more sense to group documentation on toric classes
together rather than documentation on all kinds of ambients spaces, then
all kinds of morphisms and so on. Note also that having classes in the
same module simplifies Sphynx references to them - it is much more likely
that documentation of a toric morphism will refer to toric varieties
rather than affine morphisms. Also, I find it much more convenient to work
with the source code files of toric framework as opposed to previous
schemes. When there are 5 similar named classes with almost the same
methods in a generically named file, I got confused which method I am
editing.
So I am against this patch and would prefer instead to regroup older
classes similar to toric varieties or perhaps split them into separate
modules like `affine_morphism`, `projective_morphism`, etc. Of course, it
is mostly just personal preference and taste, so if my reasoning is
unconvincing I will consent...
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/10525#comment:2>
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.
