provide gcd for new polynomial rings through _gcd_univariate_polynomial

[saraedum]

Currently, to add gcd functionality for a new polynomial ring, one needs to add a specialized subclass of PolynomialElement.

The attached patch allows rings to provide a _gcd_univariate_polynomial method which will be called by PolynomialElement to compute gcds.

This is similar to #10635.

Depends on #13441

Component: basic arithmetic

Keywords: sd59

Author: Julian Rueth

Branch/Commit: 8126ef1

Reviewer: Bruno Grenet

Issue created by migration from https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/13442

[saraedum]

Changed dependencies from 13441 to #13441

[saraedum]

comment:2

Attachment: trac_13442.patch.gz

[saraedum]

comment:3

I want to remove self from the docstrings.

[pjbruin]

comment:5

Replying to @saraedum:

I want to remove self from the docstrings.

Is this part of some style recommendation? I would say referring to self in the docstring is perfectly acceptable, since there is an object called self and it is usually clear what kind of object it is. Personally, I strongly prefer self over constructions like "this element".

[nilesjohnson]

Branch: u/niles/ticket/13442

[nilesjohnson]

Commit: b3eee8a

[nilesjohnson]

comment:7

rebased and converted to git branch; no other changes

---

New commits:

b3eee8a

Trac #13442: rings can provide _gcd_univariate_polynomial for polynomial factorization

[saraedum]

Changed branch from u/niles/ticket/13442 to u/saraedum/ticket/13442

[saraedum]

Changed keywords from none to sd59

[pjbruin]

comment:12

If I'm not mistaken, INPUT and OUTPUT blocks should not be indented.

---

New commits:

d8d7952	Merge branch 'develop' into ticket/13442
2947606	Improved docstring of polynomial gcd.

[pjbruin]

Changed commit from b3eee8a to 2947606

[sagetrac-git]

Changed commit from 2947606 to 8126ef1

[sagetrac-git]

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:

8126ef1

Merge branch 'develop' into ticket/13442

[bgrenet]

comment:15

I agree with [#comment:5 pbruin] on self versus this polynomial. I find the documentation clearer with self, and this seems to be more consistent with the rest of Sage.

Tell me what do you think of this, I'll positive review the ticket then. All tests passed with the current commits.

[saraedum]

comment:16

Replying to @bgrenet:

I agree with [#comment:5 pbruin] on self versus this polynomial. I find the documentation clearer with self, and this seems to be more consistent with the rest of Sage.

Both approaches have their drawbacks. self makes it harder to read if you do not know about python, i.e., if a 'user' consults the help. 'this polynomial' makes things slightly more difficult to understand if you know about self.
I have been asked on different tickets to replace self with something more appropriate. Sage is not really consistent with this.

Tell me what do you think of this, I'll positive review the ticket then. All tests passed with the current commits.

I do not really care how we do this in sage. Either way is fine with me.

[bgrenet]

Reviewer: Bruno Grenet

[bgrenet]

comment:17

I actually haven't a strong case for or against any of both solutions. I could have set it to positive review earlier, so let me do it now!

[vbraun]

Changed branch from u/saraedum/ticket/13442 to 8126ef1