#8703: Combinatorial Rooted Ordered and Binary Trees
-----------------------------------------------------+----------------------
Reporter: hivert | Owner: hivert
Type: enhancement | Status:
needs_review
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-5.7
Component: combinatorics | Resolution:
Keywords: trees, Cernay2012 | Work issues:
Report Upstream: N/A | Reviewers:
Authors: Florent Hivert, Frédéric Chapoton | Merged in:
Dependencies: #8702 | Stopgaps:
-----------------------------------------------------+----------------------
Comment (by darij):
Hi Florent! Thanks for the reply. One reason why I did not propose any
concrete changes to the code is that I have no idea what patches are
currently dependent on this one (I only knew of Viviane's new one with the
Dyck paths) and I want to avoid merge conflicts. I hoped some of you had a
better overview of what's happening with trees these days. If you tell me
there's no danger of conflicting changes, I can add the fixes I'd like to
see; otherwise I'd prefer someone else to do it or to wait until the
current slew of tree patches is merged. I'll try to come up with a doc for
the initialization later today, though, provided I can wrap my head around
it.
> When I wrote this function I plan to use it only for graph with
> distinct label. I'm not sure what we want when there are
> repeated label. This must be discussed.
Can we have a docstring warning about this, or a _ in the function name so
as to avoid people getting a wrong impression?
> The particular case of None is by chance handled by the graph
> but I'm not sure we should rely on it.
As my second example shows, we should definitely *not* rely on it.
Apparently None labels get translated into 0, 1, 2, 3, ..., but this
translation starts anew for every subtree, so the resulting graph isn't
the one you would expect.
> In the mean time, I'd like to document that the function
> currently only work for graph with disctinct label and open
> a new ticket for more general cases. What do you think ?
Good idea.
I completely agree with you that planar/plane aren't good terms for this
kind of trees. What I'd like is a mention in the docstring that these
terms are occasionally used, whereas "ordered" is occasionally used for
something else.
I can't wait to work with a real Loday-Ronco Hopf algebra rather than my
hacky implementation from a year ago...
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/8703#comment:31>
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.
