-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 481
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Categories for padics, schemes, and some more rings #12877
Comments
comment:2
Attachment: trac_12877-category-for_more_rings_and_schemes-nt.patch.gz Hooray, finally the category of schemes is used in Sage! Question: Are there morphisms of schemes, yet? I am first reviewing #12875 and will then also look at the ticket here. |
comment:3
Replying to @simon-king-jena:
Apparently yes :-)
(which by the way should really be Category of Schemes; see #12880) |
comment:4
As you point out in a comment, due to the custom I am sure that you did try something like By consequence, you (have to) turn In the initialisation of |
comment:5
Replying to @simon-king-jena:
I tested (it should be
There is also some more stuff in The question is whether the code duplication would be worth the effort. |
comment:6
But it is really strange:
So, why is |
comment:7
Thanks for reproducing here my unsuccessful attempts :-) Now is it worth the trouble? It's about the parent, not the elements. In the similar situation for QQ we decided for QQ not to be an extension type. It would be surprising if there would be methods on RLF that would be more critical than on QQ, wouldn't it? Cheers, |
comment:8
Replying to @nthiery:
You're welcome; but still I'd like to understand why one can see |
comment:9
There only remains one question: Why is |
Reviewer: Simon King |
comment:10
I see. Keywords such as element_constructor aren't accepted by I accept your argument about However, I'd like to understand how Parent differs from other classes with a custom |
comment:11
Replying to @simon-king-jena:
Thanks for the quick review!
I guess it's a question of extension types versus non extension types. |
comment:12
Replying to @nthiery:
No, it isn't.
At least that is what I find with sage-5.1.notebook. I do get an error in an old version of Sage that still uses the old Cython spkg. |
comment:13
Replying to @simon-king-jena:
Ouch, that's weird ... |
Merged: sage-5.1.beta1 |
This patch fixes the following classes to use categories:
#11935 depends on this one
CC: @sagetrac-sage-combinat
Component: categories
Author: Nicolas M. Thiéry
Reviewer: Simon King
Merged: sage-5.1.beta1
Issue created by migration from https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/12877
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: