Dear Ralf,
> I hope you don't feel offended by my questions.
Not at all !!!
> I knew the mathematics
> you were writing about. I was just saying that either the function
> basis() should be renamed to canonical_basis() or all what you wrote in
> your mail should better go into the specification of basis().
So that I hope you don't feel offended by my answers :-).
> I just love to see extensive documentation. The current documentation is
> not as precise as a mathematician wants. If I try to understand a
> function, I don't want to be forced to look at the code.
Sure... As you can see, there is already a lot of code in sage-combinat but it
needs some cleanup... I'm currently taking care of cleaning basic thing. And
that's why you keep receiving e-mail asking silly questions about naming
convention :-). The algebraic part will wait for Nicolas category framework to
be cleaned up. There will me a lot of move and refactoring in the code. This
will be a good moment to take also care of the doc. Actually right now I'm
pretty happy with thing not so well documented because during the cleanup, I
can change thing a lot, without breaking documented feature :-).
Cheers,
Florent
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URLs: http://www.sagemath.org
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
