It's probably just a function pointer.
void (*nNormalize)(number &a);
But I am not sure about side effects.
Michael
On 10 Sep., 15:54, "John Cremona" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/9/10 Martin Albrecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
>
> > On Wednesday 10 September 2008, mabshoff wrote:
> >> This is double plus not good.
>
> >> {{{
> >> sage: GF(109)['x', 'y'](-10)
> >> -10
> >> sage: GF(109)['x'](-10)
> >> 99
>
> >> }}}
>
> > I don't see the problem, since -10 == 99 mod GF(109).Even if it is undesired
> > that they print differently how come it is 'major'? What am I missing?
>
> I agree with Martin. We use different engines for 1- and 2-variable
> polynomial rings, and they have different normalizations for
> representing residue classes. It is not such a big deal, is it?
> though of course it would be nicer to be more consistent, if
> libSingular had a way of changing its default once and for all which
> we could call upon.
>
> John
>
>
>
> > Martin
>
> > PS: The -10 comes from libSingular so changing this would mean to not use
> > its
> > built-in printing code.
>
> > --
> > name: Martin Albrecht
> > _pgp:http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x8EF0DC99
> > _www:http://www.informatik.uni-bremen.de/~malb
> > _jab: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URLs: http://www.sagemath.org
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
