#11490 closed enhancement (fixed)
Add a thematic tutorial on coercion and categories
Reported by: | SimonKing | Owned by: | mvngu |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | major | Milestone: | sage-5.8 |
Component: | documentation | Keywords: | categories coercion thematic tutorial |
Cc: | novoselt, vbraun | Merged in: | sage-5.8.beta1 |
Authors: | Simon King | Reviewers: | Vincent Delecroix, Travis Scrimshaw, Dmitrii Pasechnik |
Report Upstream: | N/A | Work issues: | |
Branch: | Commit: | ||
Dependencies: | #14084 | Stopgaps: |
Description (last modified by )
From time to time people state that a good introduction to the category framework and Sage's coercion system is missing (at sage-devel, for example).
I suggest to include a thematic tutorial.
Note that it may relate with #8821, which is about adding a section on coercion (but not categories) in the guided tour.
Attachments (2)
Change History (56)
comment:1 Changed 11 years ago by
- Description modified (diff)
Changed 11 years ago by
Worksheet on how to use category framework and coercion when implementing parents and elements
comment:3 Changed 11 years ago by
I did some changes in my worksheet (updating both the published worksheet and the attached sws file). For some stupid reason, in the original version, I had fraction fields only for unique factorisation domains, not for integral domains.
comment:4 Changed 11 years ago by
I've only just glanced at your worksheet, but how do its contents compare to the section on coercion in the reference manual?
comment:5 Changed 10 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_review to needs_work
How is this needs review? There isn't a patch to apply. It certainly seems like good progress, but still is needs_work.
comment:6 Changed 10 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_work to needs_info
And what else should it be than a worksheet?
comment:7 Changed 10 years ago by
A thematic tutorial in the documentation is a rst file. See $SAGE_ROOT/devel/sage/doc/en/thematic_tutorials/ for examples. A worksheet is probably pretty straightforward to convert to a rst file.
So I would think the patch would be an rst file in that directory and a one-line addition to the index.rst file in that directory.
comment:8 Changed 9 years ago by
- Dependencies set to #14084
- Keywords thematic tutorial added
- Status changed from needs_info to needs_review
Using #10637 and some manual work, I have translated the worksheet into a thematic tutorial in .rst format.
One of the example needs #14084 to work, hence, this is a dependency.
The tutorial links to the reference manual, which is only possible with #6495; however, I don't think this should be considered a dependency, because in the worst case the links are not available.
Needs review! After applying the patch, do sage --docbuild thematic_tutorials html
.
Apply trac11490-coercion_tutorial.patch
comment:9 follow-up: ↓ 10 Changed 9 years ago by
Hello,
I was wondering for such a patch to come! I read it because I am interested but by far not an expert. Here are some comments for trac11490-coercion_tutorial.patch, line numbers refer to the patch.
- you may write "and" or "respectively" instead of "resp." (line 34)
- at lines 195-198 there is a kind of magic to test the pickling. You shoud add few words to explain what's happening.
- I do not like the
class MyFrac(MyFrac)
at lines 462, 812, 882 (but do not have better option) - I would like to know why test at line 494 fails while I was able to add some elements at line 294
- line 678: write "P1 == P2" instead of "P1==P2" (ie add whitespaces on both sides of "==")
- I do not like your example at line 687 because of
sage: P1 = QQ['v,w']; P2 = ZZ['w,v'] sage: v1 = P1('v'); w1 = P1('w') sage: v2 = P2('v'); w2 = P2('w') sage: (v1 + w2).parent() is P1 True sage: (v2 + w1).parent() is P1 True
In other words, P1 is prefered to P2 ! Why is the reason ? I expected that are natural coercions in both directions then the parent of elementsa+b
is determined by the parent ofa
. Actually, there is an explanation in the lines after...
Best, Vincent
comment:10 in reply to: ↑ 9 Changed 9 years ago by
Replying to vdelecroix:
- you may write "and" or "respectively" instead of "resp." (line 34)
OK.
- at lines 195-198 there is a kind of magic to test the pickling. You shoud add few words to explain what's happening.
Well, in the lines in front of it, I write
However, for making the example work in the Sage's doctesting framework, we need to declare our class as an attribute of the ``__main__`` module.
I thought this is an explanation? Technically, the doctest framework finds that the classes are defined in the module __main__
, but apparently (for a reason that is not clear to me) it can not find it in __main__
---although this perfectly works in an interactive session.
Similar case is around line 1433 and 1572.
- I do not like the
class MyFrac(MyFrac)
at lines 462, 812, 882 (but do not have better option)
The didactic idea is that it is more easy to understand what is happening, when only small changes are made. Hence, I certainly would not like to repeatedly give a full definition of MyFrac
, each time changing or adding a small detail, because the reader would then be more likely to lose track.
- I would like to know why test at line 494 fails while I was able to add some elements at line 294
At this point, we can add elements (visible in line 294), but P.zero_element()
does not work yet, because this tries to return P(0)
, but conversion is not available at this point.
Shall I add the explanation at line 494, or better at line 539, when I made the summation work?
- line 678: write "P1 == P2" instead of "P1==P2" (ie add whitespaces on both sides of "==")
OK.
- I do not like your example at line 687 because of
sage: P1 = QQ['v,w']; P2 = ZZ['w,v'] sage: v1 = P1('v'); w1 = P1('w') sage: v2 = P2('v'); w2 = P2('w') sage: (v1 + w2).parent() is P1 True sage: (v2 + w1).parent() is P1 TrueIn other words, P1 is prefered to P2 ! Why is the reason ?
There is a coercion from P2 to P1, but not from P1 to P2 (note the different base rings).
I expected that are natural coercions in both directions then the parent of elements
a+b
is determined by the parent ofa
.
That's correct, but there is no bi-directional coercion here.
OK, I'll post an update a bit later.
comment:11 follow-ups: ↓ 12 ↓ 14 ↓ 16 Changed 9 years ago by
I also have the following comments:
- There's a typo on line 100:
This base class provides a lot mor methods than a general parent::
(mor -> more).
- On line 133:
Declaring the base or base is easy
-- should that be "the base of base ring"?
- On block starting at line 141, I would set the
_repr_
and like functions in code formatting (double back ticks)
- In the
__cmp__
block, it might be worth noting that if__cmp__
is not implemented, bad things can happen when callingcmp
(ex. #14065)
- The double colon on line 312, I believe it will not show up in the documentation since I believe the newline will be treated as a whitespace.
- The block starting at line 319, the last sentence is
It not even gives a wrong answer, but results in an error::
. I believe there should be a "does".
- The
but they are *required* or *optional* methods
sentence on lines 435-436 sounds strange to me. I would recommend "so they are either *optional* or *required* methods."
- The
.. note::
on line 580 should have a blank line following it
- On line 655, I think it should end with a bang
So, *don't be afraid of using categories!*
(sorry couldn't resist the pun)
- I believe the title
Not any conversion is a coercion
on line 696 should be "Not every conversion is a coercion"
- For the 5 axioms starting on line 725, shouldn't everything align (the blocks are one space less than the first line) for proper formatting?
- On line 793 there is a typo:
We have seen above that some onversions into our
(onversions -> conversions)
- Note block on line 935 needs a newline
- The
.. warning::
block on line 1536 needs a newline
For the record, I was reading it from the patch file and didn't look at the compiled doc, so some of these might be invalid.
One last thing, this is more from my personal taste, but I think the note/warning blocks should be capitalized as .. NOTE::
and .. WARNING::
to be consistent with the dev guide.
I'm sorry this turned into a bit of a laundry list of things. Thank you for this nice tutorial!
Best,
Travis
comment:12 in reply to: ↑ 11 ; follow-up: ↓ 13 Changed 9 years ago by
Replying to tscrim:
- In the
__cmp__
block, it might be worth noting that if__cmp__
is not implemented, bad things can happen when callingcmp
(ex. #14065)
Didn't know that!
- The block starting at line 319, the last sentence is
It not even gives a wrong answer, but results in an error::
. I believe there should be a "does".
You mean "It does not even give a wrong answer, but results in an error"?
- The
.. note::
on line 580 should have a blank line following it
Really? But the html output looks fine in that location.
- For the 5 axioms starting on line 725, shouldn't everything align (the blocks are one space less than the first line) for proper formatting?
Looks fine in html.
- Note block on line 935 needs a newline
- The
.. warning::
block on line 1536 needs a newline
Looks fine in html
That said, if it is sphinx convention to have a blank line, then I'll insert one.
One last thing, this is more from my personal taste, but I think the note/warning blocks should be capitalized as
.. NOTE::
and.. WARNING::
to be consistent with the dev guide.
On some ticket (don't remember which one), I recall that both look the same in the output, but I don't recall whether we want it capitalised or not. So, if you say the dev guide recommends capitalisation, then I'll change it.
I'm sorry this turned into a bit of a laundry list of things.
Thank you!
comment:13 in reply to: ↑ 12 Changed 9 years ago by
Replying to SimonKing:
- The block starting at line 319, the last sentence is
It not even gives a wrong answer, but results in an error::
. I believe there should be a "does".You mean "It does not even give a wrong answer, but results in an error"?
Yes...
That said, if it is sphinx convention to have a blank line, then I'll insert one.
I'm just following the conventions page and that the TESTS::
and EXAMPLES::
blocks didn't format properly (although it might be because they are special).
One last thing, this is more from my personal taste, but I think the note/warning blocks should be capitalized as
.. NOTE::
and.. WARNING::
to be consistent with the dev guide.On some ticket (don't remember which one), I recall that both look the same in the output, but I don't recall whether we want it capitalised or not. So, if you say the dev guide recommends capitalisation, then I'll change it.
You are correct in that the html output is the same. Thank you, sorry to be a bit of a nag on this.
Best,
Travis
comment:14 in reply to: ↑ 11 ; follow-up: ↓ 15 Changed 9 years ago by
Replying to tscrim:
- On block starting at line 141, I would set the
_repr_
and like functions in code formatting (double back ticks)
That doesn't work, because double back ticks show up verbosely if they are in strong typesetting. Alternatively, I could remove the strong typesetting, if you prefer.
comment:15 in reply to: ↑ 14 Changed 9 years ago by
Replying to SimonKing:
Replying to tscrim:
- On block starting at line 141, I would set the
_repr_
and like functions in code formatting (double back ticks)That doesn't work, because double back ticks show up verbosely if they are in strong typesetting. Alternatively, I could remove the strong typesetting, if you prefer.
Ah, didn't know that. In that case it is fine as it is.
comment:16 in reply to: ↑ 11 ; follow-up: ↓ 17 Changed 9 years ago by
Replying to tscrim:
- In the
__cmp__
block, it might be worth noting that if__cmp__
is not implemented, bad things can happen when callingcmp
(ex. #14065)
You don't give negative examples in #14065. Do you mean things like the following?
sage: class Foo(Element): ....: def __init__(self, x, parent=None): ....: self.x = x ....: def _repr_(self): ....: return "<%s>"%self.x ....: sage: a = Foo(1,parent=ZZ) sage: b = Foo(2,parent=ZZ) sage: cmp(a,b) Traceback (most recent call last): ... NotImplementedError: BUG: sort algorithm for elements of 'None' not implemented
comment:17 in reply to: ↑ 16 Changed 9 years ago by
Replying to SimonKing:
Replying to tscrim:
- In the
__cmp__
block, it might be worth noting that if__cmp__
is not implemented, bad things can happen when callingcmp
(ex. #14065)You don't give negative examples in #14065. Do you mean things like the following?
sage: class Foo(Element): ....: def __init__(self, x, parent=None): ....: self.x = x ....: def _repr_(self): ....: return "<%s>"%self.x ....: sage: a = Foo(1,parent=ZZ) sage: b = Foo(2,parent=ZZ) sage: cmp(a,b) Traceback (most recent call last): ... NotImplementedError: BUG: sort algorithm for elements of 'None' not implemented
Yes, in addition if you implement __lt__
and like operators, it still breaks (for a easy version, inherit from CombinatorialObject
, but then remove the Element
inheritance and everything works).
comment:18 Changed 9 years ago by
The patch is updated. I hope I have addressed all your remarks!
comment:19 follow-up: ↓ 20 Changed 9 years ago by
If Vincent is happy with the changes with respect to his comments, I'll go back through and do the final review. Thanks.
comment:20 in reply to: ↑ 19 Changed 9 years ago by
Replying to tscrim:
If Vincent is happy with the changes with respect to his comments, I'll go back through and do the final review. Thanks.
Definitely happy ;-)
comment:21 follow-up: ↓ 23 Changed 9 years ago by
One last little thing, the arrow point (for lack of a better name) on line 1107 is indented because of the space. Is this intended? It also is out of sync with the formatting of the arrow point on on line 436.
Thanks,
Travis
comment:22 Changed 9 years ago by
- Cc novoselt added
comment:23 in reply to: ↑ 21 Changed 9 years ago by
Replying to tscrim:
One last little thing, the arrow point (for lack of a better name) on line 1107 is indented because of the space. Is this intended? It also is out of sync with the formatting of the arrow point on on line 436.
I updated the patch, suggesting to replace the "arrow points" by a .. NOTE::
.
comment:24 Changed 9 years ago by
- Reviewers set to Vincent Delecroix, Travis Scrimshaw
- Status changed from needs_review to positive_review
Looks good to me now too. Thank you for this nice tutorial.
comment:25 follow-up: ↓ 27 Changed 9 years ago by
We want to implement a field
got me lost. Would you mind to be more specific? Are you talking about a particular field? Are you talking about the class of all fields? Something else?
comment:26 Changed 9 years ago by
IMHO it would be good if this was reviewed by someone without much clue about this stuff (like myself :)). It's a tutorial, after all, not a reference manual...
comment:27 in reply to: ↑ 25 Changed 9 years ago by
Replying to dimpase:
We want to implement a fieldgot me lost. Would you mind to be more specific? Are you talking about a particular field? Are you talking about the class of all fields? Something else?
A few lines above, I write We illustrate the concepts of Sage’s category framework and coercion model by providing a toy implementation of fraction fields.
Of course, I could repeat that statement.
comment:28 follow-up: ↓ 31 Changed 9 years ago by
I suggest to elaborate as follows:
The parent ---------- This tutorial explains Sage's category and coercion framework by means of a detailled example, namely a toy implementation of fraction fields and fraction field elements. Since we wish to implement a special kind of fields, it makes sense to build on top of the base class :class:`sage.rings.ring.Field` provided by Sage.
comment:29 Changed 9 years ago by
- Status changed from positive_review to needs_work
comment:30 Changed 9 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_work to needs_review
Since Dima wants to have a second look, I am removing the positive review for now.
comment:31 in reply to: ↑ 28 ; follow-up: ↓ 32 Changed 9 years ago by
Replying to SimonKing:
I suggest to elaborate as follows:
The parent ---------- This tutorial explains Sage's category and coercion framework by means of a detailled example, namely a toy implementation of fraction fields and fraction field elements. Since we wish to implement a special kind of fields, it makes sense to build on top of the base class :class:`sage.rings.ring.Field` provided by Sage.
IMHO the 1st sentence,
This tutorial explains Sage's category and coercion framework by means of a detailed example, namely a toy implementation of fraction fields and fraction field elements.
belongs to the part above Outline. (and it's detailed with one 'l').
And then in "The parent" part you can say
Since we wish to implement a special kind of fields, namely, the fraction fields, it makes sense to build on top of the base class :class:`sage.rings.ring.Field` provided by Sage.
(notice namely, the fraction fields that I added.)
comment:32 in reply to: ↑ 31 Changed 9 years ago by
Replying to dimpase:
IMHO the 1st sentence,
This tutorial explains Sage's category and coercion framework by means of a detailed example, namely a toy implementation of fraction fields and fraction field elements.belongs to the part above Outline.
Yes, but there already is a similar sentence above Outline! Do you suggest to replace it?
And then in "The parent" part you can say
Since we wish to implement a special kind of fields, namely, the fraction fields, it makes sense to build on top of the base class :class:`sage.rings.ring.Field` provided by Sage.(notice namely, the fraction fields that I added.)
OK.
comment:33 Changed 9 years ago by
PS: I just think that actually we only have four axioms for coercion, not five. What I give as first axiom ("coercion is defined on all elements, while a conversion could be a partial map") is technically a consequence of the second axiom ("coercions are morphisms").
So, shall I combine the two statements?
comment:34 Changed 9 years ago by
I have updated the patch according to what we have just discussed. If you like the old version better: I kept a backup...
comment:35 Changed 9 years ago by
Sorry, I just made another change: Around line 1018, I ask: "How can we establish a coercion from P
to \mathrm{Frac}(\ZZ[x])
?"
But actually, in the end we do not establish such a coercion. Instead, we make Sage create a third parent into which both P and Frac(ZZ['x']
coerce. I commented accordingly in the new patch version.
comment:36 Changed 9 years ago by
Arrgh, I can't even count! I counted the axioms like 1., 3., 4., 5...
Fixed in the new version.
comment:37 follow-up: ↓ 38 Changed 9 years ago by
Would it be possible to include the complete code for MyFrac
, as an appendix, with line numbers? Otherwise not all things are illustrated by code, e.g. 'You are encouraged to make your parent “unique”' paragraph lets the reader wonder how exactly this can be accomplished. If there was such an appendix, you could say there 'see lines such-and-such of the appendix'. You could also replace some code snippets with such references then.
comment:38 in reply to: ↑ 37 ; follow-up: ↓ 39 Changed 9 years ago by
Replying to dimpase:
Would it be possible to include the complete code for
MyFrac
, as an appendix, with line numbers? Otherwise not all things are illustrated by code, e.g. 'You are encouraged to make your parent “unique”' paragraph lets the reader wonder how exactly this can be accomplished. If there was such an appendix, you could say there 'see lines such-and-such of the appendix'. You could also replace some code snippets with such references then.
Oops, the code after the line 'Last, we add a method that returns the characteristic of the field.'
inherits from UniqueRepresentation
. But it was easy to overlook, as my previous comment shows :)
Also, it's hard to see how MyFrac
and MyElement
fit together without a complete listing...
comment:39 in reply to: ↑ 38 ; follow-up: ↓ 41 Changed 9 years ago by
Replying to dimpase:
Replying to dimpase:
Would it be possible to include the complete code for
MyFrac
, as an appendix, with line numbers? Otherwise not all things are illustrated by code, e.g. 'You are encouraged to make your parent “unique”' paragraph lets the reader wonder how exactly this can be accomplished. If there was such an appendix, you could say there 'see lines such-and-such of the appendix'. You could also replace some code snippets with such references then.Oops, the code after the line 'Last, we add a method that returns the characteristic of the field.' inherits from
UniqueRepresentation
. But it was easy to overlook, as my previous comment shows :)
But I explicitly state in the text
You are encouraged to make your parent “unique”. That’s to say, parents should only evaluate equal if they are identical. Sage provides frameworks to create unique parents. We use here the most easy one: Inheriting from the class sage.structure.unique_representation.UniqueRepresentation is enough. Making parents unique can be quite important for an efficient implementation, because the repeated creation of “the same” parent would take a lot of time.
Do you really think this is not enough?
Also, it's hard to see how
MyFrac
andMyElement
fit together without a complete listing...
OK. The didactic approach is to develop the example step by step. But I think having the complete code in the appendix would be nice. Is there an automated way to typeset the code with linenumbers?
comment:40 Changed 9 years ago by
PS: And a few lines after motivating the use of UniqueRepresentation
in the text, there is a fat note saying
Note UniqueRepresentation automatically provides our class with pickling, preserving the unique parent condition. If we had defined the class in some external module or in an interactive session, pickling would work immediately. However, for making the example work in Sage’s doctesting framework, we need to assign our class as an attribute of the __main__ module, so that the class can be looked up during unpickling.
I really don't see how this can be overlooked.
comment:41 in reply to: ↑ 39 ; follow-up: ↓ 42 Changed 9 years ago by
Replying to SimonKing:
Replying to dimpase:
Replying to dimpase:
Would it be possible to include the complete code for
MyFrac
, as an appendix, with line numbers? Otherwise not all things are illustrated by code, e.g. 'You are encouraged to make your parent “unique”' paragraph lets the reader wonder how exactly this can be accomplished. If there was such an appendix, you could say there 'see lines such-and-such of the appendix'. You could also replace some code snippets with such references then.Oops, the code after the line 'Last, we add a method that returns the characteristic of the field.' inherits from
UniqueRepresentation
. But it was easy to overlook, as my previous comment shows :)But I explicitly state in the text
You are encouraged to make your parent “unique”. That’s to say, parents should only evaluate equal if they are identical. Sage provides frameworks to create unique parents. We use here the most easy one: Inheriting from the class sage.structure.unique_representation.UniqueRepresentation is enough. Making parents unique can be quite important for an efficient implementation, because the repeated creation of “the same” parent would take a lot of time.Do you really think this is not enough?
The confusion comes from the fact that you explain the code before showing the code (or at least saying that it is coming). There is also an inconsistency in the exposition, as you have the line
sage: from sage.rings.ring import Field
but no similar line for UniqueRepresentation
. I guess I might have waited for sage.structure.unique_representation
to show up in the code, but it didn't.
Call me dyslexic :-).
Also, it's hard to see how
MyFrac
andMyElement
fit together without a complete listing...OK. The didactic approach is to develop the example step by step. But I think having the complete code in the appendix would be nice. Is there an automated way to typeset the code with linenumbers?
After some trial and error upon reading Sphinx manual, I found that the following will work with sphinx in Sage:
.. highlight:: python :linenothreshold: 2 :: x = 2 y = [1,2] x = y .. highlight:: python :linenothreshold: 22222
the 1st highlight::
turns on line numberings for fragments with 2 or more lines, and the 2nd highlight::
effectively turns it off.
comment:42 in reply to: ↑ 41 Changed 9 years ago by
Replying to dimpase:
Do you really think this is not enough?
The confusion comes from the fact that you explain the code before showing the code (or at least saying that it is coming).
OK, then it is similar to pure maths: First show the theorem and then the proof. Actually, I tend to present a chain of thoughts that eventually constitutes the proof of a theorem that is only formulated after the proof. I'll try to change that.
There is also an inconsistency in the exposition, as you have the line
sage: from sage.rings.ring import Fieldbut no similar line for
UniqueRepresentation
.
I explicitly imported Field, because this is what one needs to do when writing a module. So, I agree I should do the same with UniqueRepresentation
.
After some trial and error upon reading Sphinx manual, I found that the following will work with sphinx in Sage:
.. highlight:: python :linenothreshold: 2 :: x = 2 y = [1,2] x = y .. highlight:: python :linenothreshold: 22222the 1st
highlight::
turns on line numberings for fragments with 2 or more lines, and the 2ndhighlight::
effectively turns it off.
Cool, thank you!
comment:43 Changed 9 years ago by
The tutorial is updated. It now contains the code twice: In small pieces in the text, and in one chunk, in the appendix.
sage -t
passes on the .rst file. When I put the code from the appendix into a .py file and load it into a Sage session, I can do:
sage: %runfile /home/simon/SAGE/work/categories/tutorial.py sage: Q = MyFrac(ZZ['x'], category=QuotientFieldsWithTest()) sage: TestSuite(Q).run()
comment:44 follow-up: ↓ 49 Changed 9 years ago by
By the way, it is a bit ironical:
sage: Q.gen() Traceback (most recent call last): ... RuntimeError: NewFrac(Univariate Polynomial Ring in x over Integer Ring) still using old coercion framework
I think that this error is totally misleading. Clearly, the new coercion model is used, is it not?
The test against the old coercion model simply asks whether P._element_constructor
is not None:
cdef inline check_old_coerce(parent.Parent p): if p._element_constructor is not None: raise RuntimeError, "%s still using old coercion framework" % p
Since P._element_constructor
now seems to coincide with P._element_constructor_
, this test is simply wrong. Similarly:
sage: def check_old_coerce(p): ....: if p._element_constructor is not None: ....: raise RuntimeError, "%s still using old coercion framework" % p ....: sage: check_old_coerce(QQ[['x']]) Traceback (most recent call last): ... RuntimeError: Power Series Ring in x over Rational Field still using old coercion framework sage: check_old_coerce(SymmetricFunctionAlgebra(QQ)) Traceback (most recent call last) ... RuntimeError: Symmetric Functions over Rational Field in the Schur basis still using old coercion framework
I think it is time to remove this test. But not on this ticket, of course.
comment:45 Changed 9 years ago by
I just fixed some typos.
comment:46 Changed 9 years ago by
Please remove unneeded "===========================" which turn Appendix into a separate document: (that's certainly not what we want, right?)
--- a/doc/en/thematic_tutorials/coercion_and_categories.rst +++ b/doc/en/thematic_tutorials/coercion_and_categories.rst @@ -1681,7 +1681,7 @@ .. end of output -=========================== + Appendix: The complete code ===========================
comment:47 follow-up: ↓ 48 Changed 9 years ago by
Could you also add the following little patch:
--- a/doc/en/thematic_tutorials/tutorial-objects-and-classes.rst +++ b/doc/en/thematic_tutorials/tutorial-objects-and-classes.rst @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ .. _tutorial-objects-and-classes: ================================================ -Tutorial: Objects and Classes in Python and Sage +Objects and Classes in Python and Sage ================================================ .. MODULEAUTHOR:: Florent Hivert <florent.hivert@univ-rouen.fr>
this fixes the awkwardly standing out "Tutorial:" in
tutorial-objects-and-classes.rst
and indoc/output/html/en/thematic_tutorials/index.html
comment:48 in reply to: ↑ 47 Changed 9 years ago by
Replying to dimpase:
Could you also add the following little patch: ...
this fixes the awkwardly standing out "Tutorial:" in
tutorial-objects-and-classes.rst
and indoc/output/html/en/thematic_tutorials/index.html
I hope Florent doesn't mind...
Anyway, I have updated both tutorials, turning the appendix into a section. I also used the occasion to provide my tutorial with a sub-title (since I just learnt how to do those things in sphinx:)
comment:49 in reply to: ↑ 44 ; follow-up: ↓ 50 Changed 9 years ago by
- Cc vbraun added
Replying to SimonKing:
By the way, it is a bit ironical:
sage: Q.gen() Traceback (most recent call last): ... RuntimeError: NewFrac(Univariate Polynomial Ring in x over Integer Ring) still using old coercion frameworkI think that this error is totally misleading. Clearly, the new coercion model is used, is it not?
Does this mean that one has to change some code here to take care of Volker's remark on sage-devel ?
comment:50 in reply to: ↑ 49 Changed 9 years ago by
Replying to dimpase:
I think that this error is totally misleading. Clearly, the new coercion model is used, is it not?
Does this mean that one has to change some code here to take care of Volker's remark on sage-devel ?
I just see that I forgot to answer.
No, I believe using sage.rings.ring.Ring and friends as base classes is correct. If one wants to use generators (which I don't, in this tutorial), then one must implement it. Namely, the gen() method inherited from ParentWithGens
belongs to the old coercion model.
So, no need to change the code here! Still needs review.
comment:51 Changed 9 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_review to positive_review
OK, looks good enough.
comment:52 Changed 9 years ago by
- Milestone changed from sage-5.7 to sage-5.8
comment:53 Changed 9 years ago by
- Merged in set to sage-5.8.beta1
- Resolution set to fixed
- Status changed from positive_review to closed
comment:54 Changed 9 years ago by
- Reviewers changed from Vincent Delecroix, Travis Scrimshaw to Vincent Delecroix, Travis Scrimshaw, Dmitrii Pasechnik
I suggest to base a thematic tutorial on this worksheet.
It covers base classes for parents and elements, category framework for parents and elements, uniqueness of parents, coercion maps, construction functors, and test suites.
The didactical approach is to explain the theory and illustrate each theoretical bit by showing how it can be implemented. Step by step, one obtains an alternative implementation of fraction fields.
There are also several texts in the combinat branch, and I suggest to add these as well. The style of these texts is very different from the style of my worksheet, and I hope that the user will benefit from diversity.