#14138: some cleanup in sage.combinat.combinat
---------------------------------+------------------------------------------
Reporter: ncohen | Owner: sage-combinat
Type: defect | Status: needs_work
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-5.8
Component: combinatorics | Resolution:
Keywords: | Work issues:
Report Upstream: N/A | Reviewers: Punarbasu Purkayastha
Authors: Nathann Cohen | Merged in:
Dependencies: | Stopgaps:
---------------------------------+------------------------------------------
Comment (by ncohen):
Yo.
> - What's the reason for removing the doctests about
> cyclic_permutations_of_partition and cyclic_permutations?
I wrote that above. The reason is that the code changed as it now calls
what it should have been calling in the first place, and this doctests
which says that "the behaviour is not the one that we usually expect" has
apprently become what one would expect. Correct it if it is wrong.
> - Don't deprecate min_part in Partitions. Even if fragile, it is
> useful in some cases, and we will want to support robustly at some
> point. The documentation warns the user.
I did not want to deprecate min_part but min_part = 0 only. Because IT
RETURNS WRONG RESULTS.
> Besides, Partitions is under heavy refactoring by #13605 which will
> get into Sage soon; we don't want conflict with that.
This ticket was positively reviewed yesterday, your ticket #13605 is 4
months old, is needing a review, weighs 400kb and depends on another
ticket #13688 which also needs a review. Why the hell would you delay this
one instead and have us work on top of yours ?
> - Please check the discussion on sage-combinat-devel about
> number_of_partitions; I don't remember whether we decided we wanted
> to deprecate it or not.
Have fun chatting about what should be done in the future.
`number_of_partitions` has been deprecated by #13072.
> - ``See http://trac.sagemath.org/14138 for details'' Please use
:trac:`14138`.
This is no Sphinx code. This is a deprecation warning, automatically
generated by the `deprecation()` function.
> Besides, if the user is referred to the ticket, then the ticket
> should be more explicit not only about what you don't like, but what
> the ticket actually does about it.
What I do not like in this ticket should be obvious to everybody. Just
read the code sample and the documentation I quoted.
This ticket has been created, written and reviewed in three days. It is
very short. Unless you can give me a fair reason why my patch should
depend on yours, which once more is NOT reviewed, is 400kb long and
depends on another ticket which still waits for a review please set this
ticket back to its initial state.
Nathann
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/14138#comment:16>
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.
