#15392: Implement minimal model algorithm
--------------------------------------+----------------------------
Reporter: bhutz | Owner: bhutz
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_review
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-5.13
Component: algebraic geometry | Resolution:
Keywords: sage-days55 | Merged in:
Authors: bhutz | Reviewers:
Report Upstream: N/A | Work issues:
Branch: | Commit:
Dependencies: | Stopgaps:
--------------------------------------+----------------------------
Comment (by nbruin):
Replying to [comment:15 bhutz]:
> I do have the two optional parameters as positional that is why it is
positional in the doctest.
No, in Python, ''all'' named arguments can be addressed via keyword. So I
wasn't suggesting changing the code, only using the doctest to encourage
addressing this option by key. If you prefer, you can still address it by
position in your own code. It's just that
{{{
phi.minimal_model(True)
}}}
isn't very self-documenting.
I think the patch update didn't quite work. Do you want to stick with
`return_conjugation` rather than `return_transformation`?
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/15392#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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
