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.
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
Allow creating finite fields without a variable name #17569
Comments
Author: David Roe |
Commit: |
New commits:
|
comment:3
Why did you remove the whole
|
comment:4
Hello ! I am affraid that I am not sufficiently skilled to review this branch, but I added a small commit at public/17569 which fixes a couple of typos and adds a link. Nathann |
comment:5
Replying to @nathanncohen:
Great. I have to go teach now, but I'll take a look in the next day or so.
|
comment:7
Okay, I've added some documentation about how the conway and prefix keywords are handled. |
comment:8
What's the point?
Sounds like it should be deprecated... |
comment:9
Currently, you can feed random keyword arguments to most (all?) of the finite field constructors and they'll have no effect.
I don't see a problem in having |
comment:10
Replying to @roed314:
You are effecting a change in the behaviour of the code. E.g. |
comment:11
Replying to @roed314:
These useless-but-accepted arguments are a plague. There was a wealth of them in many 'plot' functions at a time: you tried to give a color to something, the argument 'color="red"' was accepted but nothing happened. The most common way in which they are a pain are typos:
The side-effect of not having a '_' in About having an effect, here is one (thanks to
Nathann |
comment:12
Replying to @roed314:
That's certainly a serious bug, but outside the scope of this ticket. Still, I think that if 'conway' in kwds:
del kwds['conway']
from sage.misc.superseded import deprecation
deprecation(17569, "the 'conway' argument is deprecated, pseudo-conway polynomials are now used by default if no variable name is given") |
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
|
comment:15
Conflict due to #19941. Thanks Nathann. |
comment:16
Oh true, the rebase. Right. Give me a second. |
comment:17
Helloooooo ! As expected, it was a nightmare You will find the rebased branch at Nathann |
comment:18
Cool. Thanks for the rebase. |
Changed branch from u/roed/allow_creating_finite_fields_without_a_variable_name to u/ncohen/17569 |
comment:19
It was just the worst amount of 'bad'. Too bad to be 'easy', and not sufficiently bad to force me to learn how to merge two branches which work on a renamed file, in general. Well. Next time |
Changed branch from u/ncohen/17569 to u/roed/17569 |
Reviewer: Volker Braun |
New commits:
|
Changed branch from u/roed/17569 to |
comment:23
Using a pseudo-conway modulus by default means the function Changing the default is discussed at #31434 if anybody who |
Changed commit from |
It should be possible to use
FiniteField(p^n)
(orFiniteField(p, n)
, see #17568) without aname
argument to create the subfield ofFiniteField(p).algebraic_closure()
of cardinalityp^n
. This would meanDiscussion on sage-devel: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sage-devel/LlstHp950uo
CC: @nathanncohen @videlec @jpflori @dimpase @bgrenet @jdemeyer @vbraun
Component: finite rings
Author: David Roe
Branch:
2a92ef3
Reviewer: Volker Braun
Issue created by migration from https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/17569
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: