#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 ncohen):
> Why aren't we using bipartite graph?
Because I hate complicated data structure `T_T`
I love lists.
> 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?
Oh. I thought that we could store lists of lists in this case. I just hate
tuple. Knowing that you have to copy the whole data (a list) to make it
immutable (a tupple) horrifies me already.
Nathann
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/16553#comment:121>
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.
