#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 | dffcc4a8118a8bc5d9dfa6c1ab1aabe7aaaaa25a
Branch: public/16553v2 | Stopgaps:
Dependencies: |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by vdelecroix):
Why aren't we using bipartite graph?
Replying to [comment:119 ncohen]:
> > All right: I can put it back, but assume that the user feed the object
with sorted tuples of tuples. It is not that complicated. Is that ok for
you? I would like it to not waste my time with the constructor.
>
> What we can do is something like "set 'copy=False' if you do not want
the constructor to make a copy of your data, but know that it will be
modified. Use this flag only if you will not use your data anymore
afterwards, or if you know what you are doing".
Could you be more precise. We aim to store tuple of tuples of integers.
What do you mean by modifying but not copying the data?
Vincent
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/16553#comment:120>
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.
