Thanks for a quick reply, Mike! I have incorporated your changes, but there are further issues with number fields and their rings of integers (as I recall they are not always PIDs...). So for now I have left the call of the wrong constructor.
Andrey On Jul 15, 12:29 am, Mike Hansen <mhan...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, > > On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 11:10 PM, Andrey Novoseltsev <novos...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > sage: isinstance(SR, > > sage.rings.principal_ideal_domain.PrincipalIdealDomain) > > False > > sage: SR.is_field() > True > > > and this creates problems in FreeModule_generic_pid constructor. I am > > working on #9502 and when I tried to switch base call constructor in > > FreeModule_submodule_with_basis_pid to its real base > > FreeModule_generic_pid, I got errors. > > What would be the correct test that will accept SR as a PID? > > I think the best thing would be > > SR in PrincipalIdealDomains() > > but that requires the category to be set to fields in SR.__init__. > > --- a/sage/symbolic/ring.pyx > +++ b/sage/symbolic/ring.pyx > @@ -50,7 +50,8 @@ > sage: sage.symbolic.ring.SymbolicRing() > Symbolic Ring > """ > - ParentWithBase.__init__(self, self) > + from sage.categories.all import Fields > + ParentWithBase.__init__(self, self, category=Fields()) > self._populate_coercion_lists_(convert_method_name='_symbolic_') > > def __reduce__(self): > > Since I don't think everything has been categorized, I think you made > need to do an or statement with the old isinstance check. There > doesn't seem to be too much (if any) fallout from the change based on > my limited testing. > > --Mike -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
