#17216: Poset / LatticePoset: [meet|join]matrix algorithm
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: jmantysalo | Owner:
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_review
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-6.4
Component: combinatorics | Resolution:
Keywords: | Merged in:
Authors: Jori Mäntysalo | Reviewers: Nathann Cohen
Report Upstream: N/A | Work issues:
Branch: | Commit:
u/jmantysalo/poset___latticeposet___meet_join_matrix_algorithm|
391c03bcc290824c78f165d1623baaf1d921734d
Dependencies: | Stopgaps:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Changes (by jmantysalo):
* status: needs_work => needs_review
Comment:
Rollback done, `for` moved to other line.
Is it so that function on "real" class overrides function with same name
in category? If so, then in principle there could be `meet_matrix()`
defined on category --- it would loop over elements and construct a
matrix. Basic implementation of lattice would only have `meet()`, but
better on could have it's own and better `meet_matrix()`(?) This is
basically what could be done in good old C++.
Anyways, this is now ready for review. Another thing is making
documentation better. There is simply no point to make user to look
different places for `is_meet_semilattice()` and `is_lattice()`.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/17216#comment:21>
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.
