#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 vdelecroix):

 Replying to [comment:57 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` ?

 I would like it for sure if its purpose was only to return a boolean! A
 function that starts with `is` must return a boolean, otherwise it is a
 mess:
 {{{
 if m.is_even():
     print "m is even"
 }}}
 bad luck: `.is_even()` return a pair "(boolean, m divided by 2)" (remember
 the concrete example in #16464).

 > 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.

 It is implemented, not very ugly and not very useful!

 Vincent

--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/16553#comment:58>
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.

Reply via email to