Helloooooooooooooo !! I guess it's a perfect illustration of **limits** of the object-oriented > approach. > RSK takes (p,q) in PxQ and outputs (a,b) in AxB. > Does this mean we have to knock ourselves out creaing classes for each > pair of classes P,Q we have? >
NOooooooooooooooooooo ! We have metaclasses for that :-P > And note that P and Q is so general that there are undoubtly zillions > of functions out there which can take P and Q and output something that > has absolutely nothing to do with RSK, SSYTs, even combinatorics in > general. > There's nothing outside of combinatorics. Just put RSK in global scope (or, better, in a package, which incorporates > stuff > that deals with A and B, which here is much more restrictive than P and > Q). > Err... Or just define it as a function, inside of a module ? This way everybody can have function (you know, the thing that is a method when you have no object in front of it). Like a library, a simple library.... With functions inside.... You know, just C-style :-P Or, if you must go OO, you can think of RSK as a constructor > for elements of AxB (do you have a class for pairs of tableaux > already?). In this way you don't need to worry about a new > class for PxQ, at least. The thing is that what we know how to do is build meta classes. That's our job, that's what we do best, that's how we make money. If nobody needs metaclasses, what we should do is convince them that we they DO need metaclasses :-P Nathann -- 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.
