Here's a patch to implement one_element. You have to do "sage -ba"
after applying it since the auto dependence checking in setup.py isn't
good enough yet (any volunteers to fix it?).
-- William
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel
> Strong +1 for this. I can't believe we don't already have it :-)
>
> Not sure I would want it called _unit_ though, makes me think rather
> of invertible elements. How about _one_, or _unity_?
+1 for disambiguation of unit vs. unity.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To po
On 5/24/07, David Harvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But I don't want to dive into making a UnitaryRing subclass just to
> address this issue. We start getting problems because pyrex doesn't
> support multiple inheritance; for this reason we've been trying to
> keep the class hierarchy as simple
On May 24, 2007, at 2:31 PM, Mike Hansen wrote:
> Would it be better to have a UnitaryRing subclass? It'd be a bit more
> work but would be a bit more natural since not all rings have a unit.
You're right. Currently in SAGE the CommutativeRing class is assumed
to have a unit (algebraic geome
Would it be better to have a UnitaryRing subclass? It'd be a bit more
work but would be a bit more natural since not all rings have a unit.
On 5/24/07, Nick Alexander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> David Harvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On May 24, 2007, at 1:53 PM, Michel wrote:
> >
> >>
David Harvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On May 24, 2007, at 1:53 PM, Michel wrote:
>
>>
>> My apologies if I have misunderstood things. I am doing some pyrex
>> programming and I see there are many pitfalls (like writing !=None :-)
>>
>> I encountered the following problem:
>> If I understand
On May 24, 2007, at 1:53 PM, Michel wrote:
>
> My apologies if I have misunderstood things. I am doing some pyrex
> programming and I see there are many pitfalls (like writing !=None :-)
>
> I encountered the following problem:
> If I understand correctly then rings have a _zero_element attribut
