#16331: Game Theory: Build capacity to solve matching games in to Sage.
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
       Reporter:  vinceknight        |        Owner:
           Type:  enhancement        |       Status:  needs_review
       Priority:  major              |    Milestone:  sage-6.4
      Component:  game theory        |   Resolution:
       Keywords:  Game Theory,       |    Merged in:
  Matching Games,                    |    Reviewers:
        Authors:                     |  Work issues:
Report Upstream:  N/A                |       Commit:
         Branch:                     |  e83553e295bc8748735571fd050086d8d59b7ab3
  u/jcampbell/game_theory__build_capacity_to_solve_matching_games_in_to_sage_|  
   Stopgaps:
   Dependencies:                     |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------

Comment (by kcrisman):

 I see the problem - this really seems to depend on #16333.  The code
 probably doesn't, but in your
 
[http://git.sagemath.org/sage.git/log/?h=e83553e295bc8748735571fd050086d8d59b7ab3&qt=range&q=79d9c2f794de47dce84582afb367ba7984d92e59..e83553e295bc8748735571fd050086d8d59b7ab3
 work process] I see lots of merging of that branch in.  So it's hard to
 view this and probably the branch for this stuff needs to be redone - in
 other words,
 > This branch (#16331) is self contained (unless we messed up with
 something).
 you messed up with something.

 Other random comments:
  * `_is_sovled` - really?
  * What is a `numer`?  I see other little typos like this around
 (`matchin`, `bi-partitie`, `reviewes`, etc.)
  * Less trivially, there are a lot of methods with no doctests, and some
 even without documentation (I'm looking at the mysterious `_Player` class,
 for instance).  Just because it's 'hidden' doesn't mean it isn't at least
 minimally tested.  Ideally, it's tested with lots of dumb-but-necessary
 corner cases like empty sets of players and such, but that is more work...
  * What happens if you add a suitor but not a reviewer?  Maybe those
 methods should be hidden or even in a different scope.

--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/16331#comment:9>
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