#17979: Reimplementation of IntegerListsLex
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
       Reporter:  aschilling         |        Owner:
           Type:  defect             |       Status:  needs_work
       Priority:  blocker            |    Milestone:  sage-6.6
      Component:  combinatorics      |   Resolution:
       Keywords:  days64             |    Merged in:
        Authors:  Bryan Gillespie,   |    Reviewers:  Nathann Cohen, Jeroen
  Anne Schilling, Nicolas M. Thiery  |  Demeyer
Report Upstream:  N/A                |  Work issues:
         Branch:                     |       Commit:
  public/ticket/17979                |  f73c43fd4423675f9ce279da9bb929a44db31483
   Dependencies:                     |     Stopgaps:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------

Comment (by nthiery):

 Replying to [comment:189 jdemeyer]:
 > I don't like this:
 > {{{
 >         .. WARNING::
 >
 >             The specifications of this feature are fuzzy, leading to
 >             potentially surprising consequences (see the examples
 >             below).  It is recommended not to rely on it, as it may
 >             eventually be discontinued.
 > }}}
 >
 > The specifications are not fuzzy. They might be strange, unlogical,
 arbitrary, badly chosen but not fuzzy. To make it less fuzzy, you should
 document explicitly the fact that the equivalence only works up to
 `max_length` in the {{{NOTE}}} about this {{{WARNING}}}.

 Well, my point was: the specifications *as they are currently written*
 are fuzzy. I meant to propose an alternative specification, but
 somehow my comment did not make its way into trac. Here it is:

 {{{
 When several lists satisfying the constraint differ only by trailing
 zeroes, only the shortest one is enumerated (and therefore counted).
 }}}

 I believe this is not fuzzy anymore, and matches the current behavior
 of the code; and therefore does not require breaking backward
 compatibility at this stage.

 What do you think?

 As a separate question: do you believe like me that we should, in a
 later ticket, get rid of this "feature"?

 Cheers,
                              Nicolas

--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/17979#comment:194>
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.

Reply via email to