On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 11:42:40AM +0200, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote:
> Here is the description of http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/16410,
> which potentially needs review:
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From the discussions of (TODO: add refs to the threads in sage-devel), there
> is a consensus that, at this point, the combinatorial_map decorator should by
> default return the decorated method as is, in order to have no impact on
> speed. On the other hand, projects built on top of Sage, like findstat are
> welcome to customize locally this hook to instrument the Sage code and
> exploit the semantic information provided by this decorator.
>
> This ticket therefore:
>
> Defines combinatorial_map as a no-op
> Discuss the purpose of this decorator
> Uses the previous implementation as an example of how to customize
> combinatorial_map
>
> Note: this change is slightly backward incompatible since
> combinatorial_maps_in_class is not functional any more by default.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vincent on #16410:
> ...this ticket can be reviewed quickly compared to #16408 (which
> needs some design discussions). We can let this one go and then
> start discussing #16408 but I think we need more opinions on this.
Nathann, Christian, Viviane, ... do you mind briefly stating on the
ticket whether this sounds like a reasonable step forward?
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-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
