On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 3:47 PM, Ronan Lamy <[email protected]> wrote: > Le mercredi 13 juin 2012 à 12:16 +0100, Tom Bachmann a écrit : > > This is basically the obvious way to do it in sympy and matches the way > the core works, so it seems like a good plan.
Cool, I go for it then. Thank you everyone for your thoughts and thank you, Tom, for having moved the discussion here :-) >> >> > If yes, I can't say I am really enthusiastic, because, to factor out the >> > name of a morphism, >> > we add two classes. Also, there is essentially no way of treating a >> > collection of morphisms uniformly, since some morphisms don't have names, >> > others don't have components; one will always have to check the type. >> >> Not necessarily. You could have properties (implemented in MorphismBase) >> .name, .components which return "" and [self] to allow uniform access. >> Not sure to what extent this defeats the idea. > > Assuming that every morphism has a name and components doesn't make much > sense from a "real-world" perspective. Code that assumes that probably > has a faulty logic, so it's appropriate to let it raise an exception. Sounds plausible. Now that several people say it's not an overkill, I like the idea much better :-) Sergiu -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sympy" 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/sympy?hl=en.
