#15285: Bug in AffineGeometryDesign
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
Reporter: | Owner:
ncohen | Status: needs_work
Type: | Milestone: sage-6.1
defect | Resolution:
Priority: major | Merged in:
Component: | Reviewers:
combinatorics | Work issues:
Keywords: | Commit:
Authors: | 8468131a81898d5a3ccfb38d9f1a3d44df15fe10
Nathann Cohen | Stopgaps:
Report Upstream: N/A |
Branch: |
u/ncohen/15285 |
Dependencies: |
#15107 |
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
Comment (by ncohen):
> Personally, I will. Perfection is a lofty goal, but surely a correct
list of inputs, output, and a few doctests is a reasonable requirement?
I'm just following the guidelines:
You have no idea how totally I agree with you. You are right.
The point is that I have very frequent exchanges of hate mail with Nicolas
(among others) about this very subject. Because there is on #10963 a
comment saying "Okay, the patch is missing on the documentation side but
let's consider it good as it is" (and I see that someone just volunteered
to write it for him because it wouldn't happen otherwise). Because very
basic parts of the Category stuff still has no documentation, you just
have to "talk to the right guys", who know what is missing (i.e. the
questions they have to answer). Because I am accused of slowing down
people's work in #13624 (comments 38 to 41) when I say that packages break
without any reason nor explanation, and request more doc. Hell, I am told
I can't complain if a package breaks for no reason because it is
"experimental".
Don't misunderstand me. I totally agree with you. I just suffer of the
double standard. And of feeling that I am the only one to complain
constantly, while expecting myself to do this kind of work on my patches
`:-P`
Anyway, I added a commit. I also allowed to input an integer instead of a
FiniteField, because I hate to build a field to see the code discard the
field and use its cardinality only.
And by the way, here is an interesting thing :
{{{
sage: 6.order()
+Infinity
}}}
Let's always leave a better place than the one we entered.
Nathann
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/15285#comment:11>
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.
