On Thursday, March 15, 2012 1:50:08 PM UTC-7, William Stein wrote:
> It would be good if somebody rewrote abelian groups from scratch > taking into account your comments above. Personally, I would probably > make the user interface be similar to Magma's abelian groups, which is > pretty well thought out, and will make it easier for people (like me) > to use both Sage and Magma: > (Been away for a while and missed this thread.) Agreed. I might be the 7th attempt. I started this once, and then when I came back to it a year later, the category code had changed so much that it needed a severe rewrite (which I may have lost). But I have support this summer for exactly this task and a good idea of how to attack it. Mike O'S - I'll take your comments into account and would love further feedback. First attempt is at: http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/9773 General strategy: extend a good idea of Cremona and others (iirc) to build on William's code for finitely generated modules over PID's. A lot of things (like forming a subgroup, nee submodule) then come for free. I wanted to build one abstract class, then extend it into additive and multiplicative flavors. These would then be suitable for building generic cyclic groups, the group of units mod n, the multiplicative subgroup of a finite field, etc, etc. Rob -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-edu" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sage-edu/-/NbC_Lnuopf0J. To post to this group, send email to sage-edu@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-edu+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-edu?hl=en.
