#12977: Let singular_function expect "attributes" not as a dict
---------------------------------------+------------------------------------
       Reporter:  SimonKing            |         Owner:  malb                   
                                                      
           Type:  defect               |        Status:  needs_work             
                                                      
       Priority:  major                |     Milestone:  sage-5.1               
                                                      
      Component:  commutative algebra  |    Resolution:                         
                                                      
       Keywords:  sd40.5               |   Work issues:  Do not set a_attrib 
accidentally. Provide a flag for "comparison by equality"
Report Upstream:  N/A                  |     Reviewers:  Mike Hansen            
                                                      
        Authors:  Simon King           |     Merged in:                         
                                                      
   Dependencies:                       |      Stopgaps:                         
                                                      
---------------------------------------+------------------------------------
Changes (by SimonKing):

  * status:  needs_review => needs_work
  * work_issues:  => Do not set a_attrib accidentally. Provide a flag for
                  "comparison by equality"


Comment:

 Replying to [comment:12 robertwb]:
 > {{{
 >       634                         for a_,a_attrib in attributes:
 >       635                             if a_ is a:
 >       636                                 break
 > }}}
 >
 > If the {{{a_ is a}}} clause is never executed, the loop will run to
 completion and {{{a_attrib}}} will have the value {{{attributes[-1][1]}}}
 unless attributes happens to be empty.

 I see. Right, that has to be fixed.

 > Are you against having an explicit flag?

 I think the default should be "comparison by identity", because I am sure
 that this is how the attributes argument is intended to be used.

 I also think that (for backwards compatibility) one should still support
 the old syntax, for which "comparison by Gröbner basis computation and
 broken hash" is implicit.

 And I think that there is no harm in providing an explicit flag if one
 wants the new syntax with a "comparison by Gröbner bass computation but
 without broken hash involved since there is a list and not a dictionary of
 ideal-attribute pairs".

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/12977#comment:13>
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.

Reply via email to