#17920: Reimplement IntegerLists using Polyhedron.integral_points()
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: jdemeyer | Owner:
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_review
Priority: blocker | Milestone: sage-6.6
Component: combinatorics | Resolution:
Keywords: | Merged in:
Authors: Jeroen Demeyer | Reviewers:
Report Upstream: N/A | Work issues:
Branch: | Commit:
u/jdemeyer/ticket/17920 | 6f3164941f2565627afc1128ace01973c788f767
Dependencies: #17937 | Stopgaps:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by jdemeyer):
Replying to [comment:53 nthiery]:
> But for Partitions users are really expecting lexicographic order.
For which applications does this really matter?
I know that's how partitions are traditionally written down and how things
are done in Sage historically. But I don't think that's enough reason to
not change it, especially given the fact that the documentation doesn't
say anything about the order. Any order of the list of partitions is a
good answer mathematically.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/17920#comment:61>
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.
