On Sep 18, 1:01 am, "John Cremona" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2008/9/18 John H Palmieri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Right, I saw that in the source code. How about we change it, in this > > case, from > > > return isinstance(x, FractionField_generic) > > > to > > > return isinstance(x, (FractionField_generic, Field)) > > > (Every field is its own fraction field.) I can submit a trac ticket > > with this change, unless someone convinces me that it's a really bad > > idea. > > I think that is a good idea. If it does cause minor problems they can > surely be fixed.
I created a trac ticket for this, <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ ticket/4149>. There is some interesting discussion going on there; please join in. (Briefly, Mike Hansen feels that a function like is_FractionField should just be a check on data-types. My point is that its behavior should make mathematical sense, not just programmatic sense, especially since is_FractionField is a top-level import; otherwise it will confuse casual users. Mike's current position seems to be that this patch is a bad idea, and instead is_FractionField should changed so that it is no longer a top-level import.) --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
