Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Explain the rationale for having both categories and a hierarchy of Cython abstract classes for Parents and Elements #16427

Open
nthiery opened this issue Jun 2, 2014 · 5 comments
Open

Explain the rationale for having both categories and a hierarchy of Cython abstract classes for Parents and Elements #16427

nthiery opened this issue Jun 2, 2014 · 5 comments
Labels
c: categories p: major / 3 t: enhancement

Comments

@nthiery
Copy link
Contributor

nthiery commented Jun 2, 2014

The title says it all :-)

Upcoming here: benchmarks to support and illustrate the discussion.

One of the threads that triggered this ticket:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sage-devel/tVrqhKQ1QDs/lnru7s0feKkJ

CC: @sagetrac-sage-combinat @hivert @simon-king-jena @darijgr @nbruin @pjbruin @vbraun @tscrim @ohanar

Component: categories

Author: Nicolas M. Thiéry

Branch/Commit: u/nthiery/explain_the_rationale_for_having_both_categories_and_a_hierarchy_of_cython_abstract_classes_for_parents_and_elements @ 01fdfab

Issue created by migration from https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/16427
@nthiery nthiery added this to the sage-6.3 milestone Jun 2, 2014
@nthiery
Copy link
Contributor Author

nthiery commented Jun 2, 2014

Branch: u/nthiery/explain_the_rationale_for_having_both_categories_and_a_hierarchy_of_cython_abstract_classes_for_parents_and_elements

@ohanar
Copy link
Member

ohanar commented Jun 3, 2014

New commits:

322b69516427: Explain the rationale for having both categories and a hierarchy of Cython abstract classes for Parents and Elements
01fdfab16427: Typo fix

@ohanar
Copy link
Member

ohanar commented Jun 3, 2014

Commit: 01fdfab

@sagetrac-vbraun-spam sagetrac-vbraun-spam mannequin modified the milestones: sage-6.3, sage-6.4 Aug 10, 2014
@jdemeyer
Copy link

comment:5

Should this be set to needs_review?

@simon-king-jena
Copy link
Member

comment:6

Again: Should this be set to needs_review, Nicolas?

@mkoeppe mkoeppe removed this from the sage-6.4 milestone Dec 29, 2022
@mkoeppe mkoeppe mentioned this issue Jan 7, 2023
Open
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
c: categories p: major / 3 t: enhancement
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
5 participants
@nthiery @ohanar @jdemeyer @mkoeppe @simon-king-jena