Hi Robert, On 12 Mrz., 21:09, Robert Bradshaw <rober...@math.washington.edu> wrote: > I'm glad the coercion model is starting to get discussed, > implemented, and used by other people. Before it gets to popular, I > would like to propose an api change. > > Currently, if A has an action on B (where B is not an A-module) one > implements either a._l_action_ or b._r_action_. This is because > sometimes it makes sense to put the method on the actor (e.g. Galois > groups acting on field elements) and sometimes on the acted on (e.g. > matrices acting on quadratic forms). However, the _x_action_ is hard > to remember and doesn't always correspond to right/left actions. This > may be why they're hardly used up to this point. > > The proposal is to make the methods a._act_on_(b, self_on_left) and > b._acted_upon_(a, self_on_left). In other words, a*b would try > "a._act_on_(b, True)" and "b._acted_upon_(a, False)". This wouldn't > be a fundamental change on how things work, just mainly a naming > change, but I though it would be a good idea to run it by here.
+1 Cheers, gsw > > - Robert --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
