I like this idea much better! What would be a good name? Brainstorming: `coefficient_system`, `coefficients`, `coefficients_monomials`, `coefficient_matrix_monomial_vector`...
On Wednesday 10 January 2024 at 09:06:36 UTC+1 Nils Bruin wrote: > deprecation in a way that allows code to be adapted gradually would mean: > - introduce a new method with a different name that implements the > desired behaviour > - deprecate old method > - after appropriate deprecation period remove old method > - possibly, at this point introduce the now-vacated name as a synonym for > the method with the desired method. > Quite frankly I think "coefficient_matrix" is the wrong name anyway: I'd > expect such a method to return a matrix, but it returns a tuple (both in > the old and the new version). So I think step 4 can be skipped in this case. > > Note that often deprecation remains the state for very long: the > motivation for actually removing functionality is pretty minimal. > > > On Tuesday 9 January 2024 at 23:49:37 UTC-8 Ruchit Jagodara wrote: > >> Currently, the PolynomialSequence.coefficient_matrix() function returns a >> matrix of monomials as the second element of a tuple. However, as discussed >> in issue [#37027](https://github.com/sagemath/sage/issues/37027), it has >> been suggested that returning a vector of monomials would be more logical. >> I am uncertain about the correct approach to deprecate the current >> behavior. I have submitted a pull request with the proposed changes at PR >> [#37035](https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/37035), but I would >> appreciate guidance on whether this is the appropriate way to deprecate the >> property. >> > -- 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/00253792-8260-43aa-b449-4a04de540ad8n%40googlegroups.com.
