On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 10:13 PM, David Roe wrote: > On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 9:53 PM, Bill Page wrote: >> >> On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 9:08 PM, Carl Witty wrote: >> > ... >> > Does this mean you want GF(5)(3)*2 and RR(pi)*2 to fail? These >> > currently work due to coercions that would be unsafe according to my >> > definition. >> > >> >> The __mul__ method exported by GF(5) could accept integers as well as >> elements of GF(5), i.e. rely on operator polymorphism rather than >> non-strict coercion in such cases. > > The reason we have coercion is so that we don't have to do this.
I presume that you do not mean to imply that this is the only reason to have coercion. Could it be said that this is the reason why you want non-strict (unsafe) coercions? Regards, Bill Page. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
