On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 06:08:45PM +0200, David R. Kohel wrote: > Hi Nicolas et al, > > This morning I was looking over the categories code,
Cool! > And have some > organizational questions for getting this into sage-4.2. > > I tried the following: > > 1. I downloaded all of the files tagged for me on the Categories Review page. > > 2. I created a clean clone of sage-4.1.2 and applied the patch: > > http://combinat.sagemath.org/patches/file/tip/categories-categories-nt.patch > > so I could see what was in the patch at ticket #5891. This includes a lot > of code (and is only one of several patches there). You need to apply all the patches mentioned in CategoriesReview under #5891 to get something working. If you just want to browse the code, you can indeed only apply this one. Or you can browse the patch directly on the patch server now that this is working again: http://combinat.sagemath.org/patches/file/tip/categories-categories-nt.patch > 3. At least with sage-4.1.2, a flag -combinat, as in 'sage -combinat update' > does not exist. ? we have been using `sage -combinat install` intensively with all versions of Sage since Sage 3.something. Can you copy paste the output? Note: you probably want `sage -combinat install` > Does there exist a ticket and review for each file? Is there just > the wiki page entry of positive review? Just the wiki page for the moment. > I.e. how do I indicate a review Please just edit the wiki page as has been done so far. > and will Mike be taking responsibility for the (review? and) > integration of the whole, which is likely to be more than the sum of > the parts. That is, someone needs to take the individual reviews of > files, verify that patches in ticket #5891 are all covered and give > the OK as master reviewer, or something of that sort? The integration should be straightforward: the patches just need to be installed together, and as far as I know all test pass (except a couple trivial things we just broke). I'll probably do the synthesis of the reviews (anyone being able to check that all files are indeed marked as "positive review" on the wiki). > A design question -- there are a lot of algebraic categories "with > basis" (not among those left to be refereed). Are these meant to be > intrinsic to the category in the sense that a morphism X -> Y should > send a basis for X to the basis for Y? I would think the basis (or > its existence) should not be part of the category, unless you really > do envision a lot of combinatorial constructions in which the maps > are all induced by maps between bases. No, the basis is supposed to be distinguished, but this is not intrinsic to the categories, in the sense that the morphisms are not required to preserve the distinguished basis. On the other hand having this distinguished basis allows for a lot of code. In some sense the AsWithBasis is a more technical categories, whereas the true mathematical categories is As. I'll add this to the documentation. Cheers, Nicolas -- Nicolas M. Thiéry "Isil" <nthi...@users.sf.net> http://Nicolas.Thiery.name/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-combinat-devel" group. To post to this group, send email to sage-combinat-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-combinat-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-combinat-devel?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
