You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Often there is a natural choice of a homomorphism, which we obtain by calling homomorphism(X,Y; kw...).
This is unambiguous when there is a unique one. It's a common footgun for users when there happen to be multiple ones, and the automated search returns a morphism which is not what we were thinking of. It's quite rare in fact to want a particular but arbitrary morphism (such that which one you get is dependent on the implementation details of homomorphism). This should be allowed behavior (via a keyword argument, unique) but not default.
This would technically be a breaking change, but we could also argue that code which (implicitly) relies on hom search implementation details is incorrect code.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Often there is a natural choice of a homomorphism, which we obtain by calling
homomorphism(X,Y; kw...)
.This is unambiguous when there is a unique one. It's a common footgun for users when there happen to be multiple ones, and the automated search returns a morphism which is not what we were thinking of. It's quite rare in fact to want a particular but arbitrary morphism (such that which one you get is dependent on the implementation details of
homomorphism
). This should be allowed behavior (via a keyword argument,unique
) but not default.This would technically be a breaking change, but we could also argue that code which (implicitly) relies on hom search implementation details is incorrect code.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: