#13550: improvements and additions to dyck_words.py
-------------------------------------------------------------------------+--
Reporter: zabrocki |
Owner: sage-combinat
Type: enhancement |
Status: needs_review
Priority: minor |
Milestone: sage-5.5
Component: combinatorics |
Resolution:
Keywords: dyck_words, noncrossing partitions, parking functions |
Work issues:
Report Upstream: N/A |
Reviewers: stumpc5
Authors: zabrocki |
Merged in:
Dependencies: |
Stopgaps:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------+--
Comment (by stumpc5):
Hi,
I'd give this ticket a positive review as is. Nonetheless, I would prefer
if someone else is giving his/her okay as well since I made many changes
in this ticket myself.
Two issues I somehow do not like with Dyck words (but, if desired, should
be taken care of in another ticket) are:
- the {{{__repr__}}} and the {{{__str__}}} methods for Dyck words differ:
{{{
sage: D = DyckWord([1,1,1,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0])
sage: D
[1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0]
sage: print D
((()())(()))
}}}
- We now distinguish between complete and uncomplete Dyck words (and
implicitly did that before as well). But iterating through {{{DyckWords}}}
only yield complete Dyck words.
{{{
sage: I = iter(DyckWords())
sage: for i in range(10):^J print I.next()
....:
()
()()
(())
()()()
()(())
(())()
(()())
((()))
()()()()
}}}
Would you expect this behaviour? Are there better solutions for those?
Best, Christian
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/13550#comment:12>
Sage <http://www.sagemath.org>
Sage: Creating a Viable Open Source Alternative to Magma, Maple, Mathematica,
and MATLAB
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-trac" group.
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-trac?hl=en.
