RBF: continued_fraction

[dkrenn]

sage: continued_fraction(RBF(e))

raises a RuntimeError: maximum recursion depth exceeded ..., but

sage: continued_fraction(RIF(e))
[2; 1, 2, 1, 1, 4, 1, 1, 6, 1, 1, 8, 1, 1, 10, 1, 1, 12, 2]

Component: numerical

Keywords: arb

Author: Daniel Krenn

Branch/Commit: 5c3b41f

Reviewer: Travis Scrimshaw

Issue created by migration from https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/20069

[dkrenn]

Changed keywords from none to arb

[dkrenn]

Branch: u/dkrenn/rbf-continued-frac

[dkrenn]

Commit: b3ec6eb

[dkrenn]

Author: Daniel Krenn

[dkrenn]

New commits:

b3ec6eb

Trac #20069: fix continued_fraction for real balls (RBF)

[tscrim]

comment:4

All is_RealIntervalField does is

return isinstance(x, RealIntervalField_class)

So I think a better check would be

if isinstance(x.parent(), (RealIntervalField_class, RealBallField)):

Also, could you make the statement :trac:`20069`:: a little more verbose? Something like

Check that this works for arb elements (:trac:`20069`)::

[sagetrac-git]

Changed commit from b3ec6eb to 5c3b41f

[sagetrac-git]

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:

5c3b41f

Trac #20069: improvments suggested by reviewer

[dkrenn]

comment:6

Replying to @tscrim:

All is_RealIntervalField does is

return isinstance(x, RealIntervalField_class)

So I think a better check would be

if isinstance(x.parent(), (RealIntervalField_class, RealBallField)):

Changed.

Also, could you make the statement :trac:`20069`:: a little more verbose? Something like

Check that this works for arb elements (:trac:`20069`)::

Changed as well. Thank you for your comments.

[tscrim]

comment:7

Thanks.

[tscrim]

Reviewer: Travis Scrimshaw

[vbraun]

Changed branch from u/dkrenn/rbf-continued-frac to 5c3b41f