#14862: Compositions accept any input
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: stumpc5 | Owner: sage-combinat
Type: defect | Status: needs_review
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-5.13
Component: combinatorics | Resolution:
Keywords: composition, | Merged in:
FindStat | Reviewers:
Authors: | Work issues: provide a test in the
Report Upstream: N/A | constructor
Branch: | Commit:
Dependencies: | Stopgaps:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Changes (by andrew.mathas):
* cc: andrew.mathas (added)
Comment:
Replying to [comment:9 stumpc5]:
> We use {{{Partition}}} for {{{IntegerPartition}}}, though it could as
well refer to {{{SetPartition}}} or whatever else. For me
{{{IntegerPartition}}} is a partition of a positive integer. I would be
totally fine with using {{{IntegerPartition}}} and
{{{IntegerComposition}}}.
I am against changing the name of the `Partition` class to
`IntegerPartition`. This would create a major patch bomb as `Partition` is
used in many places -- a quick and dirty count with grep gives me 114
different python files.
More importantly, even though the name `IntegerPartition` is not bad, I do
not think it is what most people would guess when looking for partitions
so this change would, in effect, make `sage ` harder to use. Of the files
using `Partition`, 29 of them are outside of the `combinat` directory so
presumably the usage of this class is wider than just algebraic
combinatorics).
As far as I am aware there is no name conflict with the name `Partition`
(btw, there already is a separate `SetPartition` class). The only
justification for changing this name given so far is in order to maintain
name consistency with a potential name change for `Composition`. I do not
think that this is a good argument.
With regard to `Composition`, I do not have any strong feelings. I do not
see anything wrong with having both `IntegerComposition` and `Partition`
in the name-space. On the other hand, since no one has noticed a problem
with `Composition` before I don't really understand why there is suddenly
a problem now, especially as there already is a much superior notation
already available for the composition of two maps:
{{{
sage: a=Hom(ZZ,ZZ)(1)
sage: b=Hom(ZZ,ZZ)(1)
sage: a*b
Ring endomorphism of Integer Ring
Defn: 1 |--> 1
}}}
As there already is a really good way to compose maps in sage I don't find
the argument for changing the meaning of `Composition` very compelling.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/14862#comment:10>
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
