#11900: Serious regression caused by #9138
-------------------------------------------------------------+--------------
Reporter: SimonKing | Owner:
tbd
Type: defect | Status:
needs_review
Priority: critical | Milestone:
sage-5.0
Component: performance | Keywords:
categories regression
Work_issues: Update reviewer patch | Upstream:
N/A
Reviewer: Jeroen Demeyer, Nicolas M. Thiéry, Simon King | Author:
Simon King
Merged: | Dependencies:
#9138 #11911 #9562
-------------------------------------------------------------+--------------
Comment(by nthiery):
Replying to [comment:205 SimonKing]:
> Replying to [comment:204 nthiery]:
> > Ok. Then please add this as a doctest of "in Rings()" containment, ...
>
> What do you mean by that? Shall I have a `GR.category()` be defined, and
then test `GR in Rings()`?
Ah, I see; I had not noticed that GR was equiped with a category method
specifically in that example (which I probably wrote ...). Then, I would
add this to the documentation ``in Rings()``:
{{{
Currently, an object is considered *in* a category as soon as it has a
category method returning an appropriate value::
sage: class A:
....: def category(self): return Fields()
....:
sage:
sage: A() in Rings()
True
This feature will most likely be deprecated in favor of having the
class ``A`` derive from :class:`CategoryObject`.
}}}
Maybe even ``is`` rather than ``will most likely be``.
Cheers,
Nicolas
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/11900#comment:206>
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.
