#16467: Unhiding in a fully hidden Doubly-Linked List
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: foosterhof | Owner:
Type: defect | Status: needs_review
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-6.3
Component: combinatorics | Resolution:
Keywords: doubly linked | Merged in:
list unhide empty | Reviewers:
Authors: | Work issues:
Report Upstream: Reported | Commit:
upstream. No feedback yet. | f8a86c0d85e36603fb45024ff14acde049cb0903
Branch: | Stopgaps:
u/foosterhof/ticket/16467 |
Dependencies: |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by foosterhof):
This poses a usefull question:
- Should an object be able to be in the list multiple times?
If so, the data storage plan used now will not work, and a structure using
actual Node objects should be used. However, this will either break
compatibility, as remove() now takes the object to remove, while then it
would require the node containing the object, or it will increase the
complexity of remove() from O(1) to O(n) by searching for the node to be
removed. Both cases seem highly undesirable to me.
If objects cannot be represented multiple times, this can quite easily be
fixed by creating some sort of 'has' dictionary, checking whether an
element is already in the list.
What would be most desirable for Sage?
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/16467#comment:6>
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.
