Heloooooooooooo !! > Well, the question should be whether Sage supports Cartesian products.
Then perhaps it should be named "set_cartesian_product" until this is fixed ? > This comes from CategoryObject and there's a TODO to refactor it out into > the proper category, but that would need everything (with a base ring) to be > a new-style parent. It is good to know that there is a todo somewhere. Now, permutation groups should have no base ring. Can it be fixed ? > As mentioned Erik, these are because AG is an enumerated set. Then I believe enumerated sets should not have methods named first/next/last, for the methods of enumerated sets are inherited by absolutely everything, and if it may sound a good idea to have a first/next/last method in enumerated set it does not sound nice to have the same in everything which contains something finite. There is already .an_element() plus an __iter__ if I make no mistake... > The gens_dict* should also be refactored out like base_ring IMO (manly to > ParentWithGens once we get those to new-style parents). We do want to try > and get away from the sometimes ambiguous gens() to explicit_generators() > (and have them return a Family object so we can better index them and for > consistency with the infinitely generated objects), but we can make gens() > return a tuple of explicit_generators(), which will fix j_classes. The last > one returns the tuple (object, the unique generator) and I have no idea what > it is for. > > Want me to create the ticket? Yes please. I have no idea how to fix that myself. 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/d/optout.
