> > In the same vein, shouldn't base_ring be removed from Parent as well ? > > sage: Set([1,2,3]).base_ring() > > The return value is None, which is arguably correct, for a generic set has > no base ring, but it might be surprising when using tab completion to > discover functionalities to see that a base_ring() method exists for such > objects. >
+1 to that. Many other methods of Parent should be moved somewhere else (is_exact, inject_variables,gens_dict* Moreover, many method names shoulf be changed (made longer, more explicit): while the meaning of Parent.a_method can be clear, it is at times very difficult, when listing the methods of a more specific object, to understand what the same method does. Because then it is not obvious at all that a_method refers to the object 'understood as a Parent'. When you have a poset or a group in yours hands, your think of it as a group, and not necessarily as "a parent". 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.
