#6637: standardize the interface to TransitiveIdeal and friends
-----------------------------------------------------------------+----------
Reporter: nthiery |
Owner: mhansen
Type: enhancement |
Status: new
Priority: major |
Milestone: sage-5.7
Component: combinatorics |
Resolution:
Keywords: backtrack, enumerated set, transitive closure | Work
issues:
Report Upstream: N/A |
Reviewers:
Authors: | Merged
in:
Dependencies: |
Stopgaps:
-----------------------------------------------------------------+----------
Comment (by nthiery):
I totally agree with the analysis!
I don't know yet what would be the best name for the argument provided by
the user to describe the relation. Behind the scene we are definitely
modelling relation. But what the user provide is not the relation but a
function that computes the (out) neighbors for this relation. If at the
end of the day we choose "TransitiveClosure" as name for the main entry
point, then "neighbors" would be consistent. If we go for "RecursiveSet"
(or RecursiveEnumeratedSet or variant thereof) then "operators" would be
consistent.
Cheers,
Nicolas
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/6637#comment:5>
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 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 http://groups.google.com/group/sage-trac?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
