Open mohamed-barakat opened 8 years ago
Nevermind, I got it wrong. However, I gave you the possibility to add a string and get all the names containing this string. Do you need more?
Yes, I would like to see a better restructuring per notion if possible.
This would mean adding the information to the method record. Why would it be useful? I think the names are really good already.
It would be nice for the user to see what "Kernel" really means for CAP, i.e., to see exactly those installed operations which are defining for "Kernel".
Actually I would like to see this independent of any category. Something like:
ListDefiningOperations( "Kernel" );
[ "KernelObject", "KernelObjectFunctorial",
"KernelEmbedding", "KernelEmbeddingWithGivenKernelObject",
"KernelLift", "KernelLiftWithGivenKernelObject" ]
This is not as easy as it seems. The manual covers most of this, and simply seeing the names will do more harm then it helps. It does not tell you what you have to do, and there are several questions: To which category do isomorphisms belong? Should withgiven methods be displayed.
I do not see any real use of such a method.
Extracting the namelist is easy by the way, and so is matching strings. Producing meaningful output for such a method is hard, and I think that's what the manual is for.
True, this is something which is covered in the manual. I just would like to see a simple interactive command line tool. We can discuss this tomorrow.
Is it possible to have per category a list of construction "titles" like
[ "Kernel", "Cokernel", ...]
and two argument versions of
ListPrimitivelyInstalledOperationsOfCategory
ListInstalledOperationsOfCategory
where the second argument is a construction title