#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 | 422d972596908dfa24dd4ff90ba71ae891abb9d1
Dependencies: | Stopgaps:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by aschilling):
Replying to [comment:214 jdemeyer]:
> Replying to [comment:208 nthiery]:
> > (1) I know what I am doing, you do not need to check my input.
> >
> > (2) I know what I am doing, don't show me again this warning when
> > accessing the more tricky features.
> To be honest, I don't think there is much difference between these two.
Suppose hypothetically that we would add two different flags for (1) and
(2), which checks would be controlled by (1) and which by (2)?
>
> I prefer the name `check=False` mainly because it's very standard in
Sage.
Fixed!
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/17979#comment:226>
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.
