OK, great, thanks for clarifying! Am Mittwoch, 28. Mai 2014 20:53:36 UTC+2 schrieb Simon King: > > Hi Martin, > > On 2014-05-28, 'Martin R' via sage-combinat-devel < > sage-comb...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>> wrote: > >> E.g., it should know domain and codomain, and it should know > >> what category it belongs to. I think it makes sense to let a morphism > >> know whether it is injective or surjective. However, additional > >> information that is certainly interesting to researchers (e.g.: "Was > first > >> defined by John Doe in his seminal paper in Journal of Applied > >> Irrelevance") clearly should not be stored as an attribute of a > morphism. > >> > > > > I do not see any reason why such information should not be stored > somewhere > > within sage, possibly in form of a database. Could you please explain? > > I clearly said: "... should not be stored as an attribute OF A > MORPHISM". I also clearly said "... is certainly interesting to > researchers", hence (which I said in other parts of the post) it would > certainly be worth-while to store somewhere in Sage. I just doubt that > storing it locally as an attribute of a morphism is a good idea. > > Best regards, > Simon > > >
-- 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/d/optout.
