vote required for (small) backward incompatible change

[Frédéric Chapoton]

Hello everybody,

In ordre to solve the problem raised in trac #12706, it is necessary to make a backward incompatible change, namely :

http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/12706

BEFORE:

at some point, in the doc, one can find something equivalent to

sage: 0.monomials()
[0]

namely, the 0 polynomial has one monomial, which is not a monomial, but the zero of the ground ring.

AFTER:

the result will be given by the empty list, which is the only sensible result.

There is already a patch in trac, solving this issue. Please vote for or against this change, and please review the ticket if you can.

Cheers,
Frederic

[Charles Bouillaguet]

> BEFORE:

>
> namely, the 0 polynomial has one monomial, which is not a monomial, but
> the zero of the ground ring.
>
> AFTER:
>
> the result will be given by the empty list, which is the only sensible
> result.

I am 100% with the proposed change. Zero shouldn't be a monomial.

---
Charles Bouillaguet
http://www.di.ens.fr/~bouillaguet/

[Andrea Lazzarotto]

Il giorno 10/lug/2012 15:51, "Frédéric Chapoton" <fchap...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
>
> There is already a patch in trac, solving this issue. Please vote for or against this change, and please review the ticket if you can.
>
> Cheers,
> Frederic
>

I'm not an expert, but in my opinion if you have to correct a wrong result you shouldn't be afraid of incompatibilities, so I would agree to change it.

Andrea Lazzarotto

[Keshav Kini]

+1. Though I guess the question is whether [0] is a wrong result or
simply a convention. IMO it's a wrong result.

-Keshav

----
Join us in #sagemath on irc.freenode.net !

[Julien Puydt]

Le 10/07/2012 15:51, Fr�d�ric Chapoton a �crit :

> There is already a patch in trac, solving this issue. Please vote for or
> against this change, and please review the ticket if you can.

For the change.

Snark on #sagemath