On Jun 29, 2008, at 6:54 PM, David Joyner wrote: > Thanks but although that eliminated one traceback error, it created > another. > Also, I'm worried that hacking Mike Hansen's combinatorial_algebra > module > will create much more serious problems in other parts of SAGE.
The apparent inability of CombinatorialAlgebra to mesh well with the rest of Sage seems a defect in CombinatorialAlgebra that will hopefully be fixed (looks like Mike Hansen is on it, perhaps it's already done in the sage-combinat branch). From what I've read of it, this module seems well written, so the changes shouldn't be too invasive. > I'm starting to think that either GroupRing should be written from > scratch > (based closely on CombinatorialAlgebra) This will create a huge amount of redundant code. > or else a GAP wrapper should be written. Wrapping something so basic in GAP has several disadvantages--then group rings would be limited to groups and rings that GAP understands (which, especially on the rings side of things, is much more limited). There's also the issue of speed--when permutation group elements were converted from a GAP wrapper to a native implementation there was a 4400x speedup (mostly due to overhead). > I'm mostly interested in order to implement David Kohel's split > group codes, > which generalize the duadic codes which have recently been > implemented in > SAGE. Unfortunately, they rely heavily on abelian groups and their > dual, > which is currently in a state of flux (I think David Roe is rewriting > it). So maybe this should wait? I am generally against waiting for things... hopefully the interface will still be (mostly) backwards compatible through the rewrite. - Robert --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
