#17898: Removal of wrong stopgap
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: aschilling | Owner:
Type: defect | Status: needs_work
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-6.6
Component: combinatorics | Resolution:
Keywords: stopgap, | Merged in:
partitions | Reviewers: Travis Scrimshaw
Authors: Anne Schilling | Work issues:
Report Upstream: N/A | Commit:
Branch: | 39142901893bc0207e8271ccd4772469fe958e0f
public/ticket/17898 | Stopgaps:
Dependencies: |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by nbruin):
Replying to [comment:4 tscrim]:
> Bad input is not a bug. Ever.
The documentation is inconsistent on this part for release 6.5. It has one
example about "wrong" output
{{{
In the following example, the slope condition is not satisfied
by the upper bound on the parts, and ``[3,3]`` is erroneously
included in the result::
sage: list(IntegerListsLex(6, max_part=3, max_slope=-1))
[[3, 3], [3, 2, 1]]
}}}
However, the conditions mentioned just above:
{{{
- The upper and lower bounds themselves should satisfy the
slope constraints.
- The maximal and minimal slopes values should not be equal.
- The maximal and minimal part values should not be equal.
}}}
don't mention any restrictions on `max_part`. In fact, it's not documented
as possible input at all, so I can't even verify why the output above is
wrong:
{{{
INPUT:
- ``n`` -- a non negative integer
- ``min_length`` -- a non negative integer
- ``max_length`` -- an integer or `\infty`
- ``length`` -- an integer; overrides min_length and max_length if
specified
- ``floor`` -- a function `f` (or list); defaults to ``lambda i:
0``
- ``ceiling`` -- a function `f` (or list); defaults to
``lambda i: infinity``
- ``min_slope`` -- an integer or `-\infty`; defaults to `-\infty`
- ``max_slope`` -- an integer or `+\infty`; defaults to `+\infty`
An *integer list* is a list `l` of nonnegative integers, its
*parts*. The *length* of `l` is the number of its parts;
the *sum* of `l` is the sum of its parts.
}}}
and the meaning of `max_part` and `min_part` is not documented (not on the
effect they have on the generated sequence either)
so ... the stopgap might be screaming a bit loudly, but it doesn't look
wrong to me.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/17898#comment:13>
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.
