[sage-devel] Re: PowerSeries element class appears in the TAB completion

When you open a ticket, please add it to https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/25383 (Meta-ticket: deprecate useless or misleading functions in the global namespace ) On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 7:59:51 PM UTC-7 Travis Scrimshaw wrote: > I don't think such

[sage-devel] Re: PowerSeries element class appears in the TAB completion

I don't think such classes were meant to get into the public namespace as they are not so useful (such as promoting a polynomial to a power series). Indeed, as you say, these classes should not be created directly (as they do not have a redirect to pass data to a parent; cf. SemistandardTableau

[sage-devel] default interact widget for single value

Thanks to a lot of good work a few years back, we have fairly close alignment between historic @interact behavior on the Jupyter notebook (from ipywidgets) and the previous sagenb behavior. Sage cell server and CoCalc Sage worksheets are very close indeed. One fairly glaring difference I'm not

Re: [sage-devel] Re: overloading * for Set intersection

Sorry, I did not find anything about this in the docs for Sets (but I should have tried the operators for Python sets). Guillermo On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 at 20:25, Matthias Koeppe wrote: > -1 on this; as Sébastien says, we already have overloaded the bitwise > operators &, | for this -- which is co

[sage-devel] Re: overloading * for Set intersection

-1 on this; as Sébastien says, we already have overloaded the bitwise operators &, | for this -- which is consistent with Python's operators for set and frozenset - https://docs.python.org/3/library/stdtypes.html#set (Note Python's set and frozenset do not support +.) On Tuesday, March 29, 2022

[sage-devel] PowerSeries element class appears in the TAB completion

Hello everybody, During my normal uses of SageMath, I observed that the class "PowerSeries" appears in the TAB completion: sage: PowerSeries[TAB] PowerSeries PowerSeriesRing However this is the base class for the elem

[sage-devel] Re: overloading * for Set intersection

Why not use "&" and "|" ? sage: A = Set([1,2,3,4,5]) sage: B = Set([3,4,5,6,7]) sage: A & B {3, 4, 5} sage: A | B {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7} On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 11:34:14 AM UTC+2 GMS wrote: > > I have noticed the overloading of + for Set union, which I find very > convenient. > > Correspo

[sage-devel] overloading * for Set intersection

I have noticed the overloading of + for Set union, which I find very convenient. Correspondingly, I would like to propose the overloading of * for Set intersection. It seems to me that it suffices to modify local/lib/python3.9/site-packages/sage/sets/set.py by adding in class Set_add_sub_operator