On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 01:52:31PM -0800, Carl Witty wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Georg S. Weber
> <georgswe...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > But would you find it helpful to have the possibility to let it act
> > either "as gracefully as possible", or to "print out verbose
> > warnings" (coercions have costs, so if the costs are higher than a
> > specific amount, this could trigger an activity), or to "only do a
> > strict subset of coercions/coversions, and stop otherwise"?
>
> This sounds potentially very useful;
+1
> but option 3 ("do a strict subset
> of coercions/conversions, and stop otherwise") is also tricky to
> implement. For instance, if you had a mode where GF(5)(3) == ZZ(3)
> raised a ValueError exception, then "GF(5)(3) in ZZ" would be false in
> that mode, where it's normally true; that doesn't seem like the sort
> of difference that would be helpful during debugging :)
+1
Up to raising or not warnings, the semantic should not change when
debugging or not. Otherwise you can run into situations where you
can't debug bugs that do occur only in non debug mode ...
(note: this is different from disabling assertions checks when in on
the debug mode, which I am fine with).
> Modes that involve printing warnings don't have this problem.
+1
Cheers,
Nicolas
--
Nicolas M. Thiéry "Isil" <nthi...@users.sf.net>
http://Nicolas.Thiery.name/
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URLs: http://www.sagemath.org
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
