> I would think that this is incompatible with the current syntax. Yes of course, that changes the default ! But I am not so sure that it would break many things, as the current implementation is so unreliable that you cannot "guess" what G accepts as input, unless you made sure to define it with a reduced form already. So I am not sure it will break a lot of things.
> If > anything, we should add a G.linear_combination_of_gens in addition to the > existing G.linear_combination_of_smith_form_gens and in doubt you should use > these over just calling G(). I was more worried about performance issues. Really, I am not so sure that it would break so much. Of course it means changing the default behaviour, but who can use the default behaviour as it is ? I mean : if you define the group from a reduced form already, then there will be no change. And if you did not, well, you were in trouble already because you had to first make sure that you gave the right things as input. Nathann -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-support" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
