#16504: Fix the confusion in MILP.new_variable()
--------------------------------------+------------------------
Reporter: jdemeyer | Owner:
Type: defect | Status: new
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-6.3
Component: linear programming | Resolution:
Keywords: | Merged in:
Authors: | Reviewers:
Report Upstream: N/A | Work issues:
Branch: | Commit:
Dependencies: | Stopgaps:
--------------------------------------+------------------------
Comment (by ncohen):
> I don't think that #15521 made things more clear...
Well, then improve it if you do not like it :-P
> How about this:
> we require at most one of `integer`, `binary`, `real` to be given, with
`real` the default if none is given.
Makes sense. Even though, with the turn that events take, I wonder if it
would not be better to require one of them to be explicitly given : no
default. Again, nonnegative variables are the default in this field, and
we switched to another. Requiring a variable would require the users to
read the doc, which may avoid misunderstandings.
> `nonnegative` is a boolean determining whether or not the variable is
assumed to be nonnegative. In the function, we have `nonnegative=None` by
default which is currently interpreted as `nonnegative=True` but with the
warning from #15521.
>
> I think this proposal is backwards- and forwards-compatible (unlike
#15521, which is backwards- but not forwards-compatible).
It does make sense.
Nathann
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/16504#comment:7>
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.
