I took a quick look at 8335 and it doesn't look like there would be any conflict in the changesets.
On Monday, March 4, 2013 4:29:08 AM UTC-5, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote: > > > > On Sunday, March 3, 2013 7:57:11 PM UTC+1, Ben Hutz wrote: >> >> As some of you are aware the (arithmetic) dynamical systems community has >> been working on dynamical system functionality for Sage. As the initial >> ticket has been reviewed (#13130) I've opened tickets for the remaining >> (completed) functionality: >> 14217<http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/14217>, >> 14218 <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/14218>, >> 14219<http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/14219> >> . >> >> I've opened the three tickets at once and up-loaded the patches even >> though they are not quite ready for review to make the case for splitting >> morphism.py into several files. The reason is that morphism.py is getting >> crowded. With just 13130 it is still a nice compact file, but it seems like >> it is getting overloaded with (14127,14218,14219), especially since there >> remains quite a bit of dynamics functionality that has been published >> recently, but not implemented as patches (beyond these 3 tickets). I know >> that some history is lost as code when moved around, but I propose doing >> the split now (as part of #14217) before more dynamics functionality is >> added to morphism.py. This would also leave morphism.py as a more generic >> file without the dynamics specific functionality it in. >> >> If this is reasonable, I'd like some input on where to move these files. >> >> The maximum change would be an "affine_space" and a "projective_space" >> folder in sage\schemes\ each with point and polynomial morphism files for >> rings/field/finite_fields (so a total of 12 new files and 2 folders) and >> some rearrangement of where the affine/projective functionality lives (it >> in currently in schemes/generic). >> > Not sure it is related, but finite field lattices may be finally merged in > #8335. > It would be great if the two changesets were not completely conflicting. > >> >> The minimum I propose would be making 4 new files in schemes/generic one >> each for affine/projective points/morphisms. >> >> I think the major division makes sense as there are plans for a >> significant amount of dynamics functionality. But, as this proposal is >> more than just implementing a couple functions, I am seeking the >> input/experience of sage-devel. >> >> I look forward to your input. >> >> Sincerely, >> Ben Hutz >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
