#13678 closed enhancement (fixed)
Allow tab completion of matrix constructor
Reported by: | Robert Bradshaw | Owned by: | jason, was |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | major | Milestone: | sage-5.7 |
Component: | linear algebra | Keywords: | |
Cc: | Charles Bouillaguet | Merged in: | sage-5.7.beta0 |
Authors: | Robert Bradshaw, Volker Braun | Reviewers: | Volker Braun |
Report Upstream: | N/A | Work issues: | |
Branch: | Commit: | ||
Dependencies: | #13717 | Stopgaps: |
Description (last modified by )
E.g. matrix.identity(...), matrix.random(...), matrix.load(...) etc. all discoverable by tab completion.
Apply 13678-matrix-methods.v3.patch and 13678-doctests.patch to the Sage library and 13678-sagenb.patch to sagenb.
Attachments (5)
Change History (27)
Changed 10 years ago by
Attachment: | 13678-matrix-methods.patch added |
---|
comment:1 Changed 10 years ago by
Status: | new → needs_review |
---|
comment:2 Changed 10 years ago by
comment:3 Changed 10 years ago by
I like it! Works as advertised. I'll run tests shortly. In the meantime, a suggestion and a question.
(1) Stripping out "matrix" from the name of the method is a nice touch, but then the docstring appears (to the novice) to be talking about a slightly diffferent command than the one queried. Having ready access to constructors is the first step in experimenting with Sage, then tab-completion takes over for methods on that object. So tab-completion to discover constructors is fabulous. But it should be as totally straightforward as possible, IMHO.
What do you think of putting "matrix" back in the method names of the matrix object? Yes, it is verbose and redundant. It does not seem to complicate tab-completion (ie, you do not need to use tab any more in either scenario). And in the Sage library, authors can use the "old" method names without involving the matrix object (and I would think this would be preferable).
(2) Is there anyway to make the func_*
methods on this object invisible on tab-completion? I have no real good idea if they are useful, or just detritus. It'd be great if matrix.<tab>
only showed the constructors.
Rob
comment:4 Changed 10 years ago by
Both valid points of feedback.
(1) I'd lean towards not putting matrix back in the name; what if we modified some of the examples to use the new format as well? Would that make things clear that we're talking about the "same function." We could also (automatically) add a line in the docstring that "This function is available as matrix.identity or identity_matrix"
(2) Short of hiding them for all functions (-1 to that) another option is to matrix() a __call__
method on a class. If you want I can post a new patch doing this.
comment:5 follow-up: 6 Changed 10 years ago by
Authors: | → Robert Bradshaw, Volker Braun |
---|---|
Description: | modified (diff) |
Reviewers: | → Volker Braun |
Great idea to use a decorator! I've implemented the __call__
version. Also, I gave the decorator an optional name=
argument if you want to override the automatic name generation. But I'm happy with the matrix-removed names. I agree that it would be better if matrix.foo
were then mentioned in the docstring of foo_matrix
, feel free to fix this. But its not really necessary. I'm giving positive review to Robert's patch ;-)
comment:6 Changed 10 years ago by
Replying to vbraun:
I agree that it would be better if
matrix.foo
were then mentioned in the docstring offoo_matrix
, feel free to fix this.
If it is easy to inject something like "matrix.foo() is equivalent to foo_matrix()," could this be added?
It drives me nuts when we define an alias for some method and it is not included in the docstring of the original. I'd put this in the same category, so if a one-time hunk of code takes care of it, then I'd love to see that happen. Just trying to keep an eye out for the newcomers and minimize unnecessary confusion when there are two ways to do things.
comment:7 Changed 10 years ago by
Description: | modified (diff) |
---|
OK, I added automatic mention of the two forms in the docstring, as well as slight simplification to Volkers patch and showing the actual constructor code for ?? (which I've actually used before).
comment:10 Changed 10 years ago by
Gee, it seems like it would be nice to generalize the decorator one more level, so I could do something like:
@namespace('matrix') def vandermonde(R, v): return matrix(R, len(v), lambda i,j: v[i]^j)
I could see this being useful for other situations like this too.
@namespace('groups') def alternating(...): ....
comment:11 Changed 10 years ago by
Status: | needs_review → needs_work |
---|
There are a few failing doctests; sage_getsource
and sage_getdoc
get confused and interact(matrix)
needs fixing.
comment:12 Changed 10 years ago by
Cc: | Charles Bouillaguet added |
---|
Changed 10 years ago by
Attachment: | 13678-doctests.patch added |
---|
comment:13 Changed 10 years ago by
Description: | modified (diff) |
---|---|
Status: | needs_work → needs_review |
comment:14 Changed 10 years ago by
Status: | needs_review → positive_review |
---|
Looks good to me. The interface of matrix.random_unimodular
is a bit weird (and different from that of matrix.random
, but this is not this ticket's fault.
comment:15 Changed 10 years ago by
Maybe this and the QQ^(3,2)
syntax should be added to the HLA article? What do you think, Robert?
comment:17 Changed 10 years ago by
Handbook of Linear Algebra. We were writing an article for HLA on Sage, and the last call for updates just went out. It might make sense for us to put these things in the Sage chapter.
comment:18 Changed 10 years ago by
Dependencies: | → sagenb-??? |
---|---|
Milestone: | sage-5.6 → sage-pending |
This obviously needs a sagenb upgrade.
comment:19 Changed 10 years ago by
Thanks for the review.
I think it'd be worth mentioning matrix.[tab] in HLA, if it's not to late to slip in a note (and this actually goes in in time).
FWIW, sagenb pull request at https://github.com/sagemath/sagenb/pull/125
comment:20 Changed 10 years ago by
Dependencies: | sagenb-??? → #13717 |
---|
comment:21 Changed 10 years ago by
Merged in: | → sage-5.7.beta0 |
---|---|
Resolution: | → fixed |
Status: | positive_review → closed |
comment:22 Changed 10 years ago by
Milestone: | sage-pending → sage-5.7 |
---|
Very nice! I discovered a couple constructors I didn't know about (just reading the patch). I'll add it to my queue of things to review, but anybody else should feel free to beat me to it.