#14498: trees and binary trees
----------------------------------------------+-----------------------------
       Reporter:  elixyre                     |         Owner:  sage-combinat
           Type:  enhancement                 |        Status:  needs_review 
       Priority:  major                       |     Milestone:  sage-5.10    
      Component:  combinatorics               |    Resolution:               
       Keywords:  trees, binary trees, latex  |   Work issues:               
Report Upstream:  N/A                         |     Reviewers:               
        Authors:  Jean-Baptiste Priez         |     Merged in:               
   Dependencies:  #8703                       |      Stopgaps:               
----------------------------------------------+-----------------------------

Comment (by darij):

 A nice step towards the Hopf algebras. Some comments:

 @Classical algorithms:

 Typo appearing twice: "explorer" (should be "explores"). Also, "An other"
 -> "Another".

 Not sure, but I also think "transversal" should be "traversal".

 The docstrings fail to explain an important point: what exactly
 "manipulate" means (and, correspondingly, what the "action" variable is
 for). The first time I read them I thought the methods output the list of
 nodes in the respective order! The doc for ``in_order_transversal`` should
 explain the difference between node_action and leaf_action. By the way,
 why do the other methods have only 1 type of action?

 The example for ``in_order_transversal`` has two different things called
 "b". Not a big issue, of course.

 I don't understand what "the canonical permutation associated to the
 binary search tree insertion" is supposed to mean; is this a notation from
 one of Loday(-Ronco)'s papers?

 Copypaste error: the docstring for ``left_rotate`` says "Right". (Both
 times.)

 @Research algorithms:

 Is computing the hook_length_formula by symbolic integration really easier
 than just recursively multiplying the hook_length_formulas for the left
 and right subtrees and then multiplying by an appropriate binomial
 coefficient? I'm not saying it isn't, just asking.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/14498#comment:4>
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.


Reply via email to