Opened 8 years ago
Last modified 6 years ago
#13811 needs_work defect
LazyFamily cannot be copied if it can't be pickled
Reported by: | cnassau | Owned by: | was |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | minor | Milestone: | sage-6.4 |
Component: | pickling | Keywords: | LazyFamily, copy, pickle |
Cc: | Merged in: | ||
Authors: | Christian Nassau | Reviewers: | |
Report Upstream: | N/A | Work issues: | |
Branch: | Commit: | ||
Dependencies: | Stopgaps: |
Description
Currently, copying of LazyFamily
objects only works for families that can be pickled:
sage: def unpicklableFamily(): ... x = 10 ... return LazyFamily([1,2,3], lambda n: x*n) sage: f = unpicklableFamily() sage: copy(f) Traceback (most recent call last): ... ValueError: Cannot pickle code objects from closures
I suggest adding a LazyFamily.__copy__
method that fixes this.
Attachments (1)
Change History (12)
comment:1 Changed 8 years ago by
- Status changed from new to needs_review
comment:2 Changed 8 years ago by
comment:3 Changed 8 years ago by
comment:4 follow-up: ↓ 5 Changed 8 years ago by
comment:5 in reply to: ↑ 4 ; follow-up: ↓ 6 Changed 8 years ago by
Replying to nthiery:
Hi Christian!
Families are (semantically) immutable objects. Why would we want to copy them?
Good point... I stumbled across this issue while I was struggling to create a disjoint union of a dynamically generated family of LazyFamily
objects, while the real problem was that I was using closures with reference to a loop variable. I eventually resolved this issue, and my solution does not requiry any copies now. So I agree that there's no need to create shallow copies.
I do think that user code can expect that copy(any_sage_object)
does not throw an error. Maybe LazyFamily.__copy__(self)
should just return self
? This would be in accordance with
sage: copy(Integers()) is Integers() True
Cheers, Christian
comment:6 in reply to: ↑ 5 Changed 8 years ago by
Replying to cnassau:
I do think that user code can expect that
copy(any_sage_object)
does not throw an error. MaybeLazyFamily.__copy__(self)
should just returnself
? This would be in accordance withsage: copy(Integers()) is Integers() True
Yes, it would make sense to have copy(x) return x for all immutable objects in Sage. I am not sure how to achieve this though: we do not (yet?) have a class for providing code for all immutable objects in Sage, and I would not want to force every relevant class to reimplement a trivial copy method.
For the case at hand (families), maybe one could add a method Parent.copy returning self
? As far as I can tell, parents are required to be immutable anyway. But one should double check this.
Cheers,
Nicolas
comment:7 Changed 8 years ago by
- Milestone changed from sage-5.11 to sage-5.12
comment:8 Changed 7 years ago by
- Milestone changed from sage-6.1 to sage-6.2
comment:9 Changed 7 years ago by
- Milestone changed from sage-6.2 to sage-6.3
comment:10 Changed 7 years ago by
- Milestone changed from sage-6.3 to sage-6.4
comment:11 Changed 6 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_review to needs_work
Hi,
As Nicolas suggested in his comnent 6, __copy__
should be implemented as
def __copy__(self): return self
It is standard Python for immutable objects
sage: t = (1,2,3) sage: copy(t) is t True sage: i = 1231491283r sage: copy(i) is i True
Vincent
Families are (semantically) immutable objects. Why would we want to copy them?
Cheers,