#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: | ceb3802118125503bd230aae717f2afd01e646c3
u/vinceknight/game_theory__build_capacity_to_solve_matching_games_in_to_sage_|
Stopgaps:
Dependencies: |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by vinceknight):
Thanks both, I've made the following changes:
- Gone with `not all` statement on point raised above (much tidier)
- Have added doctests to `__eq__`, `__repr__` and `solve` - I had (lazily)
assumed that for smaller things and/or if there were a bunch of tests
otherwise it was ok to omit. That was lazy and sloppy.
- I agree that the `-1` auto prefs was a bit confusing. I've simply
removed them and now the autoprefs is simply an empty list.
With regards to `is_complete`, I don't think there's any standard term (as
it simply isn't well defined). This leads me to suggest `is_well_defined`
or `is_coherent`. I personally prefer `is_well_defined`. Does that sound
ok?
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/16331#comment:59>
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.
