#17053: Add function for disjoint union and ordinal sum of posets
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: jmantysalo | Owner:
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_work
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-wishlist
Component: combinatorics | Resolution:
Keywords: | Merged in:
Authors: | Reviewers:
Report Upstream: N/A | Work issues:
Branch: | Commit:
u/jmantysalo/add_function_for_direct_sum_of_posets|
7a801e8d3045ef87d8a35d8491ed2e76b18d30a3
Dependencies: | Stopgaps:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Changes (by jmantysalo):
* reviewer: Nathann Cohen =>
* author: Jori Mäntysalo =>
Comment:
Replying to [comment:20 ncohen]:
> > There is a (mostly theoretical, i hope) problem. What if somebody says
just `.disjoint_union(G, False)`?
>
> If that worries you, just add the new keyword *after* the old one in the
function's definition.
But then one cannot say `.disjoint_union(G, 'integers')`. Maybe I don't
worry that much.
As for another post: After `x=42` for example `isinstance(x,
LatticePosets)` says `False`, but `isinstance(x, LatticePoset)` gives
error message.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/17053#comment:23>
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.
