Ilya Zakharevich on Mon, 18 Jan 1999 15:46:34 -0500

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: nf.sign in 2.0.12

On Mon, Jan 18, 1999 at 06:42:28PM +0100, Karim BELABAS wrote:
> > ? nf.sign
> >   ***   incorrect type in .sign: nf.sign
> > 
> > (I also got a segfault when execution the same later in a long session.)
> It's not exactly a bug: since the defining polynomial had to be changed, the
> output is not a real "nf" since it also gives the transformation. But I guess
> it doesn't hurt to support that format also. 
> [Beware that most PARI functions which expect a number field won't
> recognize that format: since we changed user's data behind his back, it looks
> better to have user acknowledge the fact and do nf = nf[1] himself, if he
> doesn't care about the transform.]

Can you convert this technobabble into documentation?  Or is it
mentioned in 2.0.13 already?  I have 2.0.12, and cannot find any entry
on possible different output from nfinit().

Oh, I see.  It says "computes a 9-component vector", it does not say
"return a 9-component vector".  I think this chunk of doc should start
with description of the return value.

Or better, nfinit() should be fixed to always return nf - unless flag=3.