#16553: Clean IncidenceStructure
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: vdelecroix | Owner:
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_work
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 | 9be78f42a2e26008661462f6db66b5646849ee76
Branch: public/16553v2 | Stopgaps:
Dependencies: |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by ncohen):
Yo !
> It is the same as a binary matrix...
Not exactly. But anyway, a binary matrix is meant to be binary, while a
Matrix isn't as far as I know.
> True, but we have to fix the way it is stored, otherwise everything is
broken (e.g. equality, `is_simple`). Let's go for sorted tuples of sorted
tuples of integers and add a flag
`do_not_copy_or_check_the_input_and_I_am_sure_that_it_is_what_I_want` in
the constructor. Is that good for you?
What is the problem ? If you translate the input to 0,...,n-1 anyway we
never have any reason to accept what the users gives us without a copy, do
we ? And so you can sort it as you want, given that it is your data and
that you will never give it as it is to anybody else.
Nathann
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/16553#comment:101>
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.
