My guess is so that one could define an _element_constructor_ at the category level. Although IMO, the possibility of that being meaningful is low considering you have to know something about the implementation of the associated element class in order to do this, which breaks the abstract-ness of the category code. There is one very natural exception to this: façade parents, which is a category-level implementation/property. So you will have to address this, but my current impression from reading the code is the current indirection is not necessary.
Best, Travis On Saturday, December 9, 2017 at 2:45:01 AM UTC-6, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > > The "modern" way to define a Parent class is as follows: > > class MyParent(Parent): > Element = MyElement > def __init__(self): > Parent.__init__(self, category=MyCategory()) > > One thing which surprises me is that the code to have the "Element = > MyElement" trick work is implemented in the category of Sets. It seems > to me that this should really be part of the general Parent > infrastructure, independent of categories. > > So, is there any particular reason why this is implemented in Sets? Are > there any objections to changing that? > > > Jeroen. > -- 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.
