#16553: Clean IncidenceStructure
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: vdelecroix | Owner:
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_review
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-6.3
Component: combinatorial | Resolution:
designs | Merged in:
Keywords: | Reviewers:
Authors: Nathann Cohen, | Work issues:
Vincent Delecroix | Commit:
Report Upstream: N/A | b51512d642a603ea91d9358ea3d7877f184938d0
Branch: public/16553 | Stopgaps:
Dependencies: |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by ncohen):
Hello !
> I still have a `_t_design_parameters(self,t)` (that only depends on `t`)
and a `is_t_design(self,t,v,k,l)`. We can always make only one function
using an "output wrapper":
> {{{
> def
make_the_output_the_user_want(t,v,k,l,vv,tt,kk,ll,return_parameters):
> ....
> }}}
> but I prefer the current version. Better idea?
What do you think of having only a
`is_t_design(t=None,v=None,k=None,l=None)` ?
It would return pairs `(a_boolean,(t,v,k,l))`, such that the parameter is
equal to the parameter given as input unless it was equal to `None` ?
It is easy to guess `v,k`, you already did the job for `t`, and as I don't
think anybody will want to compute `B.is_t_design(l=395)` I guess we can
say that "t must be defined if lambda is defined". I don't think anybody
would complain.
It can be implemented anyway if needed, it will just be ugly.
Nathann
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/16553#comment:57>
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.
