On Friday, September 8, 2017 at 12:37:46 PM UTC-5, David Roe wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 11:54 AM, Ben Hutz <bn4...@gmail.com <javascript:>>
> wrote:
>
> Since the consensus is that P(0) etc. is too ambiguous a choice, that is
>> now #23806.
>>
>
> I don't think anyone was saying that we should change P(0), just that
> there should not be a coercion from QQ. A conversion is fine. See
> http://doc.sagemath.org/html/en/tutorial/tour_coercion.html#conversion-versus-coercion
>
I'm fine with whatever the majority opinion is on this matter. I personally
think the dimension 1 case is natural and have more concern over the higher
dimensional case: you can currently do
{{{
sage: P2=ProjectiveSpace(QQ,2)
sage: P2(0,0)
(0 : 0 : 1)
}}}
and the equivalent for higher dimensions. I have not encountered any
issues, but can see how this could lead to errors in code that would be
difficult to trace.
In case it affects opinions, 23807 now contains a fix for the affine_patch
issue that was brought up, removing some of the nonsensical behavior there.
--
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.
