#7828 closed defect (fixed)
There should be a top-level sign() function.
Reported by: | robertwb | Owned by: | AlexGhitza |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | minor | Milestone: | sage-4.4.4 |
Component: | basic arithmetic | Keywords: | sign sgn |
Cc: | Merged in: | sage-4.4.4.alpha0 | |
Authors: | Karl-Dieter Crisman, John Cremona | Reviewers: | John Cremona, Robert Bradshaw |
Report Upstream: | N/A | Work issues: | |
Branch: | Commit: | ||
Dependencies: | Stopgaps: |
Description
Attachments (2)
Change History (17)
comment:1 Changed 12 years ago by
comment:2 Changed 12 years ago by
Especially, if some of the methods are .sign().
comment:3 Changed 12 years ago by
Okay, this makes lots of sense, and in fact we should check hasattr with that first. Patch coming up, which should work but will also allow (perhaps this is not good):
sage: p = PermutationGroupElement('(3,4,8,7,9)') sage: p.sign() 1 sage: sign(p) 1
comment:4 Changed 12 years ago by
- Status changed from new to needs_review
comment:5 follow-up: ↓ 6 Changed 12 years ago by
- Reviewers set to John Cremona
- Status changed from needs_review to positive_review
Looks good, applies fine to 4.4.3.alpha0 and tests pass.
I did wonder whether it would be better to return a Sage integer rather than an int?
Also, I looked for places where sgn() was used/defined and found a redundant definition of sgn() in quadratic_forms/extras.py, which I am removing in another ticket (#9068).
comment:6 in reply to: ↑ 5 Changed 12 years ago by
I did wonder whether it would be better to return a Sage integer rather than an int?
Hmm, that is an interesting thing I should have considered but did not. As long as we are consistent, that's probably the main thing, though it is often helpful to return something that has the Integer methods... Are there any current sign()/sgn() methods that return something other than an int?
Usually one just adds or multiplies it with Integers, but I could imagine that sometimes the output itself would be important and that it should also then be an Integer. If so... another ticket, or on this one?
comment:7 Changed 12 years ago by
- Status changed from positive_review to needs_work
Well, I did look for other places where methods sgn() or sign() were defined; since in fact I have another comment, which is that as well as looking to see if x has a method sign() you should also look for a method sgn(). The only thing I found was that function in quadratic_forms, and that distracted me from making this comment.
I will do the following now, and report back:
- Apply both your patch and mine at #9068
- Change the function you changed in two ways: making the return type Integer and also checking for x.sgn()
- Test the whole library.
For the moment I have reverted this to "needs work".
comment:8 Changed 12 years ago by
- Component changed from algebra to basic arithmetic
- Keywords sign sgn added
- Milestone changed from sage-wishlist to sage-4.4.3
- Status changed from needs_work to needs_review
comment:9 Changed 12 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_review to positive_review
Looks good to me.
comment:10 Changed 12 years ago by
- Reviewers changed from John Cremona to John Cremona, Robert Bradshaw
comment:11 Changed 12 years ago by
- Merged in set to sage-4.4.4.alpha0
- Resolution set to fixed
- Status changed from positive_review to closed
comment:12 Changed 11 years ago by
Was there a concious decision in this ticket (or elsewhere) not to standardize on either sign()
or sgn()
. I just saw the relevant part of sage/functions/generalized.py
, and thought one of these is redundant.
comment:13 Changed 11 years ago by
I think the point was that not everyone would think of sign()
or sgn()
automatically; depending on where you come from mathematically, one or the other is more natural. This doesn't seem to me to be a problem; we have lots of aliases, and it seems very unlikely that there would be confusion once someone saw both of them, as sgn is clearly short for sign.
Or maybe you mean we should pick one and leave the other one as an unspoken alias.
However, I guess in this ticket and #9068 there is an implicit assumption that the methods (as opposed to functions) should be called .sign()
. Is that bad?
comment:14 Changed 11 years ago by
I suggest we choose sign()
as the convention and make sgn()
an alias where necessary. Then we don't need to check for the existence of both .sign()
and .sgn()
methods. That code (around line 474 of sage/functions/generalized.py
) suggests we encourage sloppy programming.
Shall I open a ticket to look through the library for sgn()
and sign()
functions and change them appropriately?
comment:15 Changed 11 years ago by
I think that cremona already did this, but put this in there just in case there was another one. So are you suggesting that the reviewer patch should be modified? I think that the fear is that someone will put in a .sgn()
method and won't realize it won't work; on the other hand, one could check for .sgn()
and raise an error, but that also would make it look weird. Though I wouldn't say sloppy, but rather decentralized programming.
Apparently, it's called
sgn
, but perhaps we should have sign as an alias.