2009/4/10 Robert Bradshaw <rober...@math.washington.edu>: > > On Apr 10, 2009, at 10:08 AM, William Stein wrote: > >> On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 9:51 AM, David Roe <r...@math.harvard.edu> >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 11:40 AM, John Cremona >>> <john.crem...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>> :-) There's a patch in trac (#4637) adding documentation to p- >>> adics, and >>> I'm going to write a bunch of doctests tomorrow. >>> >>> And yes, I originally wrote Extended Integers and Extended >>> Rationals when I >>> was writing lazy p-adics. Since lazy p-adics aren't currently in >>> good >>> enough shape to be turned on, I don't think any part of the sage >>> library >>> uses Extended Integers or Extended Rationals. Upon further >>> reflection, I'm >>> not sure I even need them for lazy p-adics. I don't know if it's >>> a good >>> idea to just get rid of extended integers and rationals or not. >> >> +1 to getting rid of them. I say we just delete both files. Nobody >> knows what they are really, and they aren't needed, and they are >> probably partly broken given the bad coverage (at least of integer). >> I made this #5735: >> >> http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/5735 > > I'll second this. If we need them someday, then we'll accept them > with full coverage. Actually, I think this could probably be better > done lazily and generically rather than re-defining every method that > exists in the integers/rationals.
+1. Note that at #2515 Burcin already proposed this, pointing out that they are redundant. Deleting these two files will increase the overall coverage rather quickly ;) John > > - 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
