Skip to content

splitting_field: polred -> polredbest #37225

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Feb 13, 2024
Merged

splitting_field: polred -> polredbest #37225

merged 1 commit into from
Feb 13, 2024

Conversation

AurelPage
Copy link
Contributor

This PR partially addresses #22165. It removes one (in splitting_field) of the two uses of the Pari deprecated function polred. The other one is less trivial to remove and should probably be discussed in the issue.

📝 Checklist

  • The title is concise, informative, and self-explanatory.
  • The description explains in detail what this PR is about.
  • I have linked a relevant issue or discussion.
  • I have created tests covering the changes. [the code is meant to be functionally equivalent]
  • I have updated the documentation accordingly.

⌛ Dependencies

None

@videlec
Copy link
Contributor

videlec commented Feb 3, 2024

Wouldn't it be better to use directly pari nfsplitting?

@AurelPage
Copy link
Contributor Author

@videlec Yes it would be. But I was planning to do that in a separate change. The reason is that nfsplitting does not have all the options that sage's splitting_field allows (namely abort_degree; in addition, Pari always uses the equivalent of the option simplify), so if we don't keep the sage code, the interface will not be backwards compatible. So we may as well fix the sage code first, unless you are happy to change the interface.

@github-actions GitHub Actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Feb 3, 2024

Documentation preview for this PR (built with commit c1d0859; changes) is ready! 🎉

@videlec
Copy link
Contributor

videlec commented Feb 3, 2024 •
edited
Loading

@videlec Yes it would be. But I was planning to do that in a separate change. The reason is that nfsplitting does not have all the options that sage's splitting_field allows (namely abort_degree; in addition, Pari always uses the equivalent of the option simplify), so if we don't keep the sage code, the interface will not be backwards compatible. So we may as well fix the sage code first, unless you are happy to change the interface.

Indeed, it seems more reasonable to make pari nfsplitting an available option to splitting_field. And also to do that in a further change.

@vbraun vbraun merged commit 76b1a92 into sagemath:develop Feb 13, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers
1 more reviewer

@videlec videlec videlec approved these changes

Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements
Assignees

@fchapoton fchapoton

@videlec videlec

Labels
c: number fields sd125 sage days 125
Projects
None yet
Milestone
sage-10.3
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
5 participants
@AurelPage @videlec @vbraun @fchapoton @mkoeppe