#17898: Removal of wrong stopgap
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: aschilling | Owner:
Type: defect | Status: needs_info
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: | 2f7a90d8419ca8d2202b3cb31290e58194f666e3
public/combinat/fix_bad_stopgap-17898| Stopgaps:
Dependencies: |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Changes (by ncohen):
* status: needs_review => needs_info
Comment:
Hello Travis,
Your current branch removes the stopgap in all cases, despite not properly
checking all input (which I do not think can be done). Jeroen and I (if I
did not misunderstand his position) stand for something like that:
1) If the set of parameters satisfy constraints for which we know that
`IntegerListsLex` works, then do the job without warning
2) Otherwise, raise a warning
This is the safest path, as we have examples of what you would call
bad/misleading input that should not be accepted by this function.
If I understand the intent behind your patch, you believe that
`IntegerListsLex` is used correctly by all of Sage's functions, and that
we are only at risk when users call it directly, with possibly wrong
input. Thus only the 'public' version of `IntegerListsLex` will raise the
stopgap, and all internal calls will be silent. I believe that it is
dangerous too, for many user-exposed functions call `IntegerListsLex`
(and so bypass `IntegerListsLexPublic`), and may also return wrong output.
I am not sure that all internal calls to `IntegerListsLex` are safe and
checked either.
To answer one of your earlier question, I personally did not implement
this conditional stopgap myself because I do not know any restriction of
the parameters for which I could swear that only trustworthy results will
ever be returned. If you know such a combination and find a reviewer who
double-checks it, however, that is a good way out for this ticket.
Nathann
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/17898#comment:24>
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.
