Enabling // just for Euclidean rings is fine for me. Or let's say A//k is defined if // is defined on the entries of A? (which should include euclidean rings). And if it is not then one has to do the ugly conversion by hand if one really wants it.
On Wednesday, November 1, 2017 at 11:30:59 PM UTC+1, Simon King wrote: > > On 2017-11-01, David Roe <roed...@gmail.com <javascript:>> wrote: > > I don't think you're missing anything, and I would support adding this > > feature to matrices. > > I wouldn't support it. > > If you have an integral domain R, then the quotient x/y for x,y in R > will live in the fraction field of R, whereas floor division x//y > (I think) is only defined if R is a euclidean ring (division x//y > with remainder x%y). > > The situation that this thread is about is different. Here, > we have a module, not an integral domain nor a euclidean ring. > If M is a matrix and c a skalar, then M/c is just syntactical > sugar for (1/c)*M. > > Should M//c become syntactical sugar for "conversion of (1/c)*M > into M.parent()"? I don't see why it should. > > That said: I also don't say that I would oppose to making M//c work. > I just wouldn't support it... > > Best regards, > Simon > > -- 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.
