Re: [sage-devel] Re: Re: Re: Python vs Cython parents, and element constructors

2015-02-12 Thread Robert Bradshaw
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 1:24 AM, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > On 2015-02-11 18:18, Marc Mezzarobba wrote: >> >> Jeroen Demeyer wrote: Element.__call__ calls it, it is a Cython call. >>> >>> There is no Element.__call__. >> >> >> I meant Parent.__call__, sorry. > > If Parent is a Python object

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Re: Re: Python vs Cython parents, and element constructors

2015-02-12 Thread Jeroen Demeyer
On 2015-02-11 18:18, Marc Mezzarobba wrote: Jeroen Demeyer wrote: Element.__call__ calls it, it is a Cython call. There is no Element.__call__. I meant Parent.__call__, sorry. If Parent is a Python object, then Parent.__call__ cannot possibly be a Cython call. -- You received this message

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Re: Re: Python vs Cython parents, and element constructors

2015-02-11 Thread Robert Bradshaw
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 9:17 AM, Marc Mezzarobba wrote: > Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > >> You are missing something: > > Indeed! Thanks for pointing it out. That was sloppy grepping of mine. > >> * finite fields are Python >> (src/sage/rings/finite_rings/finite_field_*.py) > > So in this case, apparent

[sage-devel] Re: Re: Re: Python vs Cython parents, and element constructors

2015-02-11 Thread Marc Mezzarobba
Jeroen Demeyer wrote: >> Element.__call__ calls it, it is a Cython call. > There is no Element.__call__. I meant Parent.__call__, sorry. -- Marc -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving e

[sage-devel] Re: Re: Re: Python vs Cython parents, and element constructors

2015-02-11 Thread Marc Mezzarobba
Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > You are missing something: Indeed! Thanks for pointing it out. That was sloppy grepping of mine. > * finite fields are Python > (src/sage/rings/finite_rings/finite_field_*.py) So in this case, apparently, (i) the Python parent classes derive from an abstract Cython cla