Changes between Initial Version and Version 1 of Ticket #28159, comment 89


Ignore:
Timestamp:
10/13/19 16:44:59 (2 years ago)
Author:
gh-DeRhamSource
Comment:

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified
  • Ticket #28159, comment 89

    initial v1  
    66> Besides, I have made the latter return `NotImplementedError` when the tensor bundle is not the tangent bundle, because in such a case, a `VectorFrame` should not be returned. Do you agree? Shall we maintain the alias `vector_frame` for `local_frame`?
    77
    8 In this case, I do not agree. Altough actual frames of general tensor bundles are not implemented, vector frames ''induce'' them canonically. In the whole preexisting code, a vector frame is used for declaration and output of tensor fields. So, in my opinion, we should keep it this way. However, a corresponding remark in the documentation might be a good idea.
     8In this case, I do not agree. Altough actual frames of general tensor bundles are not implemented, vector frames ''induce'' them canonically. In the whole preexisting code, a vector frame is used for declaration and output of tensor fields. So, in my opinion, we should keep it this way (at least until general tensor product bundles are not implemented). However, a corresponding remark in the documentation might be a good idea.
    99
    1010> I have some question regarding the methods `atlas()`, `change_of_frame()`, `changes_of_frame`, `coframes()`, `frames()`, `set_change_of_frame()`,  `transition()`, `transitions()` of class `DifferentiableVectorBundle`: are these methods really necessary? As currently implemented, they return only features of the base manifold. In particular, none of them is using the tensor type `(k, l)` of `self`.