-1, agreed with Nathan Dunfield Le mardi 20 octobre 2020 à 06:12:39 UTC+2, Nathan Dunfield a écrit :
> -1: I don't really care what RealField.__repr__ returns, but cast a token > no vote to object to the logical next move of breaking backwards > compatibility by changing the meaning of RealField and/or RR. I see the > need for a "genuine real field", but it seems a lot simpler just to call it > something other than "RealField" and so not break a lot of existing users' > Sage code. > > Best, > > Nathan > > On Wednesday, October 14, 2020 at 1:28:08 AM UTC-5 vdelecroix wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> I would like to discuss the patchbomb at >> >> https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/24523 >> >> The ticket hopes to change the string representation from >> "Real Field with XX bits of precision" to "Real Floating-point >> field with XX bits of precision". >> >> Rationale: it was quite unfortunate from the beginning that >> RealField and ComplexField mean "floating-point arithmetic". >> On the one hand, one would like to be able to work with the >> (abstract) Parent modeling the real numbers (eg for coercions). >> On the other hand, in the setting of computer algebra it is >> very often much better to work with interval arithmetic or >> balls rather than floating-point. The ticket is a small >> step towards getting the genuine "RealField" standing for >> the set of real numbers. See >> >> https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/17713 >> >> I think this deserves an agreement from other developers! Any >> comment very welcome. >> >> Best >> Vincent >> >> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/d9e2e654-6cb8-42b7-821f-2be818332451n%40googlegroups.com.
