#14496: unify the three implementations of gaussian q-binomial coefficients
-------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
Reporter: chapoton | Owner: tbd
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_work
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-5.10
Component: combinatorics | Resolution:
Keywords: gaussian binomial | Work issues:
Report Upstream: N/A | Reviewers: Francis Clarke, Travis
Scrimshaw
Authors: Frédéric Chapoton | Merged in:
Dependencies: | Stopgaps:
-------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
Changes (by fwclarke):
* status: needs_review => needs_work
Comment:
Two points remain, I think:
1. On speed, I see that you are not using the cyclotomic method when `q`
is not a polynomial. But by using `cyclotomic_value` the faster method
can be efficient for "scalar" values too.
2. I don't see any reason why `gaussian_binomial` should be
''deprecated''. This terminology is in common use, and a mathematician
who knows only this name should not be told that it is "wrong". She
should be able to use it without necessarily ever knowing that some people
use a different name. Doesn't deprecation mean that eventually the
function will disappear from Sage? This would only cause confusion.
Surely the two should be ''synonyms'', as are, for example, the number-
field methods `ring_of_integers` and `maximal_order`.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/14496#comment:15>
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.
