> Ideally, the coercion model just has the idea of an action, without
> having to specify where they can come from. In any case, it's clear
> there's some cleaning up to do, and I'll go in and do that (though
> not right now).
Yup. That's why in MuPAD we were doing this declaratively; something like:
declareSignature(operator.action, (QQ['x,y,z'], SymmetricGroup(3)),
code_for_the_action)
But the current model is way good enough for the moment. No need to
refactor all at once :-)
For the name change: +1 for me. Just please give a quick try of your
patch with the ones of sage-combinat; I guess they should be
compatible, but one never knows.
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
