[sage-devel] Re: Possible coercion code bug, and coercion concerns

2007-11-01 Thread Robert Bradshaw
On Nov 1, 2007, at 1:26 PM, Carl Witty wrote: > On Oct 31, 11:41 pm, Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> On Oct 31, 2007, at 8:40 PM, Carl Witty wrote: >>> 2) The automatic detection of possible actions scares me. It seems >>> fragile and overly magical. Would it be possible to disa

[sage-devel] Re: Possible coercion code bug, and coercion concerns

2007-11-01 Thread Carl Witty
On Oct 31, 11:41 pm, Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Oct 31, 2007, at 8:40 PM, Carl Witty wrote: > > 2) The automatic detection of possible actions scares me. It seems > > fragile and overly magical. Would it be possible to disable this > > (which would presumably slow things bac

[sage-devel] Re: Possible coercion code bug, and coercion concerns

2007-10-31 Thread William Stein
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 23:41:46 -0700, Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Oct 31, 2007, at 8:40 PM, Carl Witty wrote: >> I'm not sure if _rmul_c_impl is actually allowed to assume that _c is >> Rational. I think it may be, because the bad _rmul call is made by >> LeftModuleAction.__init

[sage-devel] Re: Possible coercion code bug, and coercion concerns

2007-10-31 Thread Robert Bradshaw
On Oct 31, 2007, at 8:40 PM, Carl Witty wrote: > William just reported #1044, which I tracked down to the _rmul_c_impl > method in NumberFieldElement_quadratic. This code had: > cdef Rational c = _c > but in this case, _c was actually an Integer. > > I'm not sure if _rmul_c_impl is actua