-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 564
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
Generalize base class construction for functorial construction categories #18174
Comments
New commits:
|
Commit: |
comment:3
LGTM |
comment:4
For the record: all long tests pass up to some failures/timeouts I often get on my test machine:
|
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Changed keywords from none to sd67 |
Changed branch from public/categories/functorial_magic-18174 to |
Changed commit from |
Changed reviewer from Nicolas Thiéry to Nicolas M. Thiéry |
This was referenced Oct 12, 2015
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
This ticket implements the following syntactic sugar for functorial
construction categories::
This makes them behave consistently with
CategoryWithAxiom
.As is noted in the code, the internal logic is very similar, but there
seemed at this point to be no good way to avoid the duplication.
The first syntactic sugar was actually already partially implemented
for
GradedModulesCategory
, so half of the work is just generalizingexisting code.
The syntactic sugar is not valid for construction categories that take
extra arguments like
Algebras
, since there is no generic way todecide what the argument should be used for:
CC: @nthiery
Component: categories
Keywords: sd67
Author: Travis Scrimshaw
Branch:
c35a270
Reviewer: Nicolas M. Thiéry
Issue created by migration from https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/18174
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: