On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 12:54:13PM -0400, David Roe wrote:
> I have another little conflict in that the name Posets is, since
> recently, used for the library of posets:
>
> sage: Posets.ChainPoset(3)
> Finite lattice containing 3 elements
>
> very much like graphs and digraphs for graphs. Note that one can also
> use:
>
> sage: posets.ChainPoset(3)
> Finite lattice containing 3 elements
>
> is more consistent in the casing.
>
> Is this a direction we want to push forward? Namely that a category
> As() would also serve as a library of objects in A, available under
> the form As.MyExample() ? If yes, should the library of lattices be in
> Posets, or in Lattices, or in both?
>
> I would agree with Rob, that we should keep the category separate from the
> collection of objects. In this case I think it would be fine to have
> either
> posets.ChainPoset(3)
> or
> lattice_posets.ChainPoset(3).
Thanks for the feedback! I am still uncertain because this makes two
entry points. So more pollution of the global name space, and two
spots for the user to lookup for. Also, at some point categories will
come with methods for constructing some of their objects, like:
Algebras(QQ).free(['x','y','z'])
which somehow calls to put all other objects there as well.
So more feedback welcome!
Cheers,
Nicolas
--
Nicolas M. Thiéry "Isil" <nthi...@users.sf.net>
http://Nicolas.Thiery.name/
--
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
