#16272: redesign transversal designs
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: vdelecroix | Owner: Vincent Delecroix
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_review
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-6.2
Component: combinatorics | Resolution:
Keywords: designs, | Merged in:
orthogona arrays | Reviewers:
Authors: Vincent Delecroix | Work issues:
Report Upstream: N/A | Commit:
Branch: public/16272 | bcf917589a03c3e71a800a51d181ed24a96834f9
Dependencies: #15310, #16227 | Stopgaps:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by ncohen):
Yo !
> You are right. I moved `TD_existence` as a doctest in
`transversal_design` and now `projective_plane_as_OA` belongs to the
module `block_design`.
Okay, I really think that you are wrongly assuming that it is "always
cool" to add tests, but I always check the long tests when I work on a
file and adding "a minute there, a minute there" really is painful.
Let's talk about the code : you screamed when I removed the feature "give
me the largest k possible" from the MOLS. It is now time to add it. To add
the feature in all 3 constructors, because it costs absolutely nothing
{{{
def OA(...):
if k is None:
all(OA(k+1,n,existence=True) for k in range(2,n+4))
return k
}}}
And for all others
{{{
def TD(...):
if k is None:
k = OA(None, n,existence = True)
}}}
Then your doctest will be lighter and we will have the feature back. I can
do it if you don't want to.
Also : would you mind not constructing the design for values of k which
are smaller than the best possible ? Really, please don't make doctests
too long. It takes times when you work on code, and you really over-check
stuff. Remember that all results are checked before being returned anyway,
so really this is a waste of (developer) time.
> The function `projective_plane_as_OA` is not similar to
`ProjectivePlaneDesign` as it returns an OA (moreover, possibly not a
complete OA(n+1,n,2)). To write it, I just pick the code from what was in
OA and put it in an independent function. To my mind, we should keep the
`ProjectivePlaneDesign` function as it was before.
If you need to rewrite a different version of !ProjectivePlaneDesign
becaause it is to slow, is it safe to assume that !ProjectivePlaneDesign
should be changed ?
It does not make any sense to implement the same thing twice, Vincent,
really. Of course if you have to call the !ProjectivePlaneDesign you may
have some conversion to do, but is that really a problem ? We must not
implement this thing twice, really ....
Nathann
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/16272#comment:23>
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/d/optout.
