#16362: Orthogonal Polar Graph
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: ncohen | Owner:
Type: enhancement | Status: positive_review
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-6.3
Component: graph theory | Resolution:
Keywords: | Merged in:
Authors: Nathann Cohen | Reviewers: Dima Pasechnik
Report Upstream: N/A | Work issues:
Branch: | Commit:
public/ticket/16362 | ff7d3387b4436411ed6785e2a3b6c5c37f2ca1f6
Dependencies: | Stopgaps:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by ncohen):
Yooooooooo !!
> No, you are simply misled by %time here.
And by {{{sage -t}}} too.
> I am not forcing anything. Certainly, you can convince me to change it,
or change it yourself. I gave you a number of arguments (readability of
the code, robustness) why there is an advantage to use libGAP. You
dismissed them all without any reasons, except that "slowdown".
Well, yes. This is a reason that is reminded to me every time I start Sage
and create those strongly regular graphs. It is a down side for me, a user
of that code.
> I may give you one more argument: my code makes sure that the finite
fields used by GAP and by Sage are the same (mathematically). Your code
does not really address this. Your code relies on an assumption, that
currently appears to be true (well, at least I think so) that GAP and Sage
use the same algorithm, based on Conway polynomials.
You did not mention this before. Do you think that a lot of code in Sage
is based on this assumption ?
> What you appear to have suggested that you accept my code only to change
it later, in another branch, with another reviewer. And I found this very
worrying, as this undermines the way Sage reviews work.
Indeed. Be worried of what may happen with the Graph code in Sage, it is
clearly unsafe when I am around.
> You did not ask me to remove my commit. You asked me to change a part of
the code that relies on libGAP, didn't you?
Indeed, I asked you to remove that part. Do you really believe that all
this discussion is about the typos that you fixed ?
> Indeed, what is happening on this ticket is very abnormal, and you might
force me to draw attention to it on sage-devel.
You keep mentionning this as if you thought that it might be a problem for
me. If you have something to bring up on sage-devel send an email. I am
not doing anything secret here that I would not want to be known.
When I rape and commit murder, I usually don't mention it on public
tickets.
I mean. There were exceptions, of course...
> I merely mentioned this to draw your attention to the fact that arguing
about the startup speed of something which is at best a prototype
implementation is silly.
In what world do you live ? I *do not know* how to implement this, and if
I did it would still be a massive amouont of work that I have no reason to
do, because it is totally useless to me. Telling me to use a nonexistent
backend that I don't know how to write does not lead anywhere. Implement
it, and of course this code will use it.
> Should we set the status of this ticket back to `needs_review`, as you
apparently admit yourself that you do not act in good faith when you
switched it to `positive_review`?
Well, I think that this ticket is a good addition, even though you made
the function slower on the first run for bad reasons. Not a sufficient
reason to hold it back, even though it is a pity, of course.
Nathann
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/16362#comment:48>
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.
