> > Suppose that our object X has a basis consisting of four 2x2 matrices, > in some abstract sense. Then your > > X.list() > > might very well return a tuple of four *mutable* 2x2 matrices. Then > this X.tuple() is still very much mutable, and the original problem > has not been solved. I guess that's my point. >
I am inclined to agree with Volker. Returning a tuple from X.list() would be one basic device to help not accidentally change the list of the elements of X, though it is not a bulletproof one. Making list(X) and X.list() return different things definitely > violates the "principle of least surprise". Is that list(X) returns a list while X.list() returns a tuple so surprising? The former can be seen as a "conversion" from X to a list , like list((1,2,3)), while the latter is a command to list elements of X, as Volker said. I made this mistake once > before with matrices, in which X.list() returns a list of all the > entries of the matrix, whereas list(X) returned the rows. This is > totally my fault, definitely wrong, and its' in Sage right now. > The list of the rows of X is the closest thing to X. So we can understand the current behavior as the "conversion" of a matrix. -- 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.
