Hellooooooo !! > Backwards compatibility issues?
Well, we can deprecate stuff for a start. And the message could say "What you are looking for moved to a different place ! It's larger, there is a lot of light and a comfy couch. Come join us !" > I have a lot of code where I would > not want to change every NumberField(...) to fields.NumberField(...) > and similarly with QuadraticField() and CyclotomicField(). Is this > just a question of scale, i.e. those are almost all the special field > constructors while there are lots and lots of codes? Hmmm... There is no "fields.<tab>" object in the version of Sage I run, so I don't get your question O_o You have around 32 entries in the groups.<tab> thing (more are being added), around 7 in the designs.<tab> thing (more are being added. At least 4-5). Around 7 entries in the matroids.<tab> thing, and the graphs.<tab> has 143 but they are not in the global namespace :-P The goal is to have nice entry points for the mathematical structures that Sage can create. I posted here a couple of weeks ago just because I couldn't find Z/nZ in Sage, and it would have been easier if it had been available through groups.<tab>. Which is being done too (waiting for a review). The only question that remains is : do we want to keep copies of the constructors in the global namespace too ? Why should we even import them when Sage starts ? Should we have 2 ways to access them ? fields.Quadratic looks good in your case. Though there is no fields.<tab> thing at the moment it seems. What do you think ? Nathann -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
