Skip to content
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

GAP.julia_to_gap vs. GAP.Obj #827

Closed
ThomasBreuer opened this issue Oct 7, 2022 · 0 comments · Fixed by #848
Closed

GAP.julia_to_gap vs. GAP.Obj #827

ThomasBreuer opened this issue Oct 7, 2022 · 0 comments · Fixed by #848

Comments

@ThomasBreuer
Copy link
Member

For users, calling GAP.Obj is more natural than calling GAP.julia_to_gap, see oscar-system/Oscar.jl/pull/1600. The documentation should express this.
Currently the keyword argument recursive is not documented for GAP.Obj.

(Should one better call GAP.GapObj instead of GAP.Obj if one knows that the result is a "non-immediate" GAP object?)
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

document recursive for GAP.Obj and GAP.GapObj ThomasBreuer/GAP.jl
1 participant
@ThomasBreuer