-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 78
Make promote a no-op if inputs have same type
#2405
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
Open
lgoettgens
wants to merge
1
commit into
Nemocas:master
Choose a base branch
from
lgoettgens:lg/promote-identical-input
base: master
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
First off: if this fixes a concrete issue and both @lgoettgens and @thofma are happy with it, go ahead, I don't want to block progress.
That said, I have some questions (which could also be turned into an issue for later).
What if
S === Tbuttypeof(x) !== typeof(y)? I.e. different matrix types over the same ring type? We normally don't have that, unless something went wrong, so perhaps it is OK to ignore; it just seems odd.More importantly, as @thofma already pointed out: what if
S === Tbutbase_ring(x) != base_ring(y)?Do we have a way to detect if the "base rings have a common promotion"?
One could of course do something stupid like this
Of course the way
Ris computed is a nasty hack. To do better I guess we would need a helper that takes two rings and returns their "promotion" -- or maybe this already exists?I imagine that such a helper would always return one of its two argument, or else indicate a problem (by raising an error or returning
nothingor so). It would have to be written carefully to match the actual promotion behaviour.(BTW, it seems
change_base_ring(R, x)always creates a new object, even ifRis already the base ring of (the parent of)x. Is this intentional? Then it should be documented. If it is not, perhaps we should change that?)There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There is a problem, since the addition will throw in general (l. 1183), e.g. for finite fields.
I think we should leave possible improvements to a proper value based promotion system (I have an idea for it, but did not find the time yet to implement it). The changes are of a larger scale, since currently we do not keep track of enough information.