Hey > In the long run I definitely vote for option 1, with > sage.combinat.partitions.number_of_partitions pointing at any time to > whatever implementation is fastest. I am also all fine with option 1 > in the short run if the user gets a useful error message when passing > extra options; something like: > > sage: number_of_partitions(4, <some options>) > Error ... options ... not supported anymore ... > Please use Partitions(n, <options>) > > Otherwise I vote for option 2 as a first round, and option 1 later. > > But that's just my 2 cents! >
If almost everyone will call the fastest algorithm, it makes sense not to do any subsequent argument parsing to decide which algorithm. Also having one main entry point means it is easier to maintain the code should a faster algorithm become available. Therefore option 1 is my first, then follow as Nicolas suggested. I guess that now makes it 4 cents. Best, Travis -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. 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. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel?hl=en.
