'Peter Mueller' via sage-support writes:

> The functions and their docs in codes.bounds.* still seem to be a mess (as 
> they have been since many years now). (...)

Indeed, these bounds are a catastrophe. Names, order of parameters, and
documentation is sorely lacking. In particular, none of the docs
describe whether the bounds hold for only linear codes or not.

A way around the incompatibility issues is to completely replace the
functions with a new set of functions with a more well-designed
interface. For instance, each of the bounds can be used as bounds for
any one of the code parameters, instead of just the dimension. Perhaps
someone could think of a clever interface to allow this. Is there any
precedence elsewhere in Sage?

Then the entire current module could just be deprecated.

> (4) Again, there seem to be wrong bounds. For instance, 
>  codesize_upper_bound(19,10,2) yields 8, while there are easy examples of 
> size 16, and it is known that there are even codes of size 20. Looking into 
> the source code reveals that codesize_upper_bound erroneously uses the 
> Griesmer bound, which works for linear codes only.

The doc here is clearly very lacking. I think it makes sense to allow
querying only for linear codes (over fields), as the focus of Sage's
current functionality is firmly based here. A parallel set of functions
(or by using optional arguments etc.) could then support non-linear
codes over fields, or even codes over rings.

There's also #16393 (https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/16393), but I
would suggest going much further in redesign than suggested there. And
of course, the very old patch currently there is completely out of date.

Best,
Johan

-- 
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-support.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to