#17898: Removal of wrong stopgap
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: aschilling | Owner:
Type: defect | Status: positive_review
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-6.6
Component: combinatorics | Resolution:
Keywords: stopgap, | Merged in:
partitions | Reviewers: Travis Scrimshaw,
Authors: Travis Scrimshaw, | Anne Schilling
Anne Schilling | Work issues:
Report Upstream: N/A | Commit:
Branch: | d3de7cf960cb38e03d69d3e4b8951bcc9ddd830a
public/combinat/fix_bad_stopgap-17898| Stopgaps:
Dependencies: |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Changes (by tscrim):
* status: needs_work => positive_review
Comment:
The first one is documented:
{{{
However, providing incoherent constraints may yield strange
results. It is up to the user to ensure that the inner and outer
compositions themselves satisfy the parts and slope constraints.
[snip]
The generation algorithm is constant amortized time, and handled
by the generic tool :class:`IntegerListsLex`.
}}}
The second one is a bug, and should be fixed on a followup ticket. I will
fix that on a followup ticket (because I know neither you nor Nathann
will). The third violates the assumptions.
@ncohen I don't think the original stopgap should have been accepted
because your standards were too low for making a good set of conditions.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/17898#comment:43>
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.
