On Mar 12, 2009, at 12:44 PM, Florent Hivert wrote: >> I guess "safe" is a matter of personal taste. I find >> >> sage: GF(5)(0) == 0 >> True >> sage: GF(5)(1) == 1 >> True >> sage: GF(5)(-1) == -1 >> True >> >> to be "safe," but it seems some people are really bothered by this >> idea and would rather have to write "a == a.parent().coerce(1)" > > I'd rather write a.parent().one or a.parent().one() or a.parent > ().unit() > or... rather than to ask for coercion. IE if you are in a ring you are > supposed to have unit which can be a complicated data structure (eg > 1000x1000 > sparse matrix or something even worse). If it's the case, the > methods which > compute it should have a cache if it's not an attribute whereas > coerce clearly > can't have reasonable cache for large base ring.I don't think > having coerce > do a particular thing for 0, 1 or -1 is reasonable...
No, certainly not. But what I'm saying is that sage: GF(5)(3) == 3 True Seems just as natural. - Robery --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
