Hey,
Just a brief followup on this thread.
For the improvements to the libgap interface I am working on this
week, I need _div_ and __div__ to be available for all elements of a
(unital ...) multiplicative structure; not just those inheriting for
RingElement etc. So I added those methods in #19937 [1], in a
consistent way with what we already have for __sub__ and _sub_.
Which means one additional little __div__ method to move around in
case we decide to move all the __xxx__ methods in Element ...
I personally don't have a clear cut opinion about whether to keep the
__xxx__ methods in the categories (and in the specialized classes
XXXElement) or moving them all to Element. I am torn between the
niceness of coercion for all elements and the inconvenient of
namespace pollution.
If that's ok with you, given that #19937 is small and innocuous, that
we need _div_ anyway, and that __div__ is easy to move around later,
I'd rather merge #19937 now, without waiting for a potential move of
the __xxx__ methods.
Cheers,
Nicolas
[1] http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/19937
--
Nicolas M. Thiéry "Isil" <nthi...@users.sf.net>
http://Nicolas.Thiery.name/
--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
