On 5/22/20 6:40 PM, AlexGhitza wrote: > I would also argue that, despite the validity of the arguments regarding > inexact rings, this is a change in behavior that would have benefited > from a deprecation warning for a short while.
We were pretty careful not to break anything in the sage library. For typical inexact rings, the risk of breakage was minimal, because not much worked to begin with. What we overlooked was that not all inexact rings are typical, and that in cases like RealBallField and exact-SR, the change could turn a right answer to a wrong one *in a situation that wasn't ridiculous to begin with.* None of those cases were doctested, so they were easy to overlook. > Another user-friendlier way of doing this (making the check argument > irrelevant in the inexact case) would have been to display a warning > when the user asks for check=True in the inexact case, rather than > simply ignoring it. The base class defaults to check=True, and that can't be changed, so you would get a warning on every inexact solve in that case. Moreover for the "usual" inexact rings, things were unilaterally improved and not deserving of a warning. It will probably take a bit of domain-specific knowledge to make RBF/CBF work as Nils expects, but reverting SR back to the old behavior when all of its elements are exact shouldn't be hard if it doesn't cause any new unforeseen problems. Let's just fix it instead of throwing warnings. -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/7588a5e8-55a0-ba6a-4145-f4b515612363%40orlitzky.com.
