#6637: standardize the interface to TransitiveIdeal and friends
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: nthiery | Owner: mhansen
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_review
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-6.3
Component: combinatorics | Resolution:
Keywords: backtrack, | Merged in:
enumerated set, transitive | Reviewers: Travis Scrimshaw
closure, days57 | Work issues:
Authors: Sébastien Labbé | Commit:
Report Upstream: N/A | dd72bfc1227605362e9baf847a623ddd6bd297f9
Branch: | Stopgaps:
public/ticket/6637 |
Dependencies: #14052 |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by slabbe):
Replying to [comment:53 tscrim]:
> If that's okay with you.
The more I think about it, the less I like it. I think dd72bfc can be
confusing for someone looking at the file for the first time. Until that
person looks at the file sage/sets/all.py he will not understand how the
`__init__` handles the structure argument. And the key will always be
hidden in some other file `sage/sets/all.py`. I suggest we go with your
initial factory function. More precisely with commit 3191690. Do you
agree?
If so, I do not know what should we do then (git question). Should we
update the commit field? Should we reset the HEAD of the branch? Should we
create a new branch pointing to the commit?
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6637#comment:54>
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.
