On Dec 9, 7:03 pm, Rob Beezer <goo...@beezer.cotse.net> wrote: > Thanks, everybody, for the illuminating discussion. > > Is there any objection to deprecating the current .adjoint() function > (which returns a matrix of cofactors) and renaming it as the > "adjugate"? With all the usual procedures and warnings for the > deprecation. That would begin the process to free up "adjoint" for > something else (ideally the conjugate-transpose).
We definitely should have adjoint be conjugate transpose as soon as possible. In this case, I would even argue that the current behavior is close enough to "wrong" that it would be acceptable to discuss a shorter deprecation period, though in reality Sage 5.0 isn't coming soon, so that will still be plenty of time... > Jason - wasn't there some spirited discussion a while ago about using > Python properties? I couldn't find it in a search. Oh, please don't bring that back. It's already enough work getting students to remember the parentheses; having to remember when to use it or not, yikes... -- 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
