#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, Travis Scrimshaw
Report Upstream: N/A | Work issues:
Branch: | Commit:
public/ticket/17979 | a939fd59bfcf043bce3c9a61ae072337961873da
Dependencies: | Stopgaps:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by nthiery):
Replying to [comment:267 jdemeyer]:
> However, the are many cases where a `ValueError` is raised despite
> the fact that only finitely many lists satisfy the constraints.
With the forward smoothing and partial backward smoothing of the
envelope w.r.t. `min_slope` and `max_slope` the situation should be
better now. At least all the examples your provided work smoothly,
and I am not sure I have an example under hand that would be finite
and not detected as such.
> Perhaps the exception `The specified parameters do not allow for an
inverse lexicographic iterator` should be weakened to `it looks like the
specified parameters do not allow for an inverse lexicographic iterator`
or something.
Yes, until we have something guaranteed, that's the right thing to do.
Cheers,
Nicolas
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/17979#comment:283>
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.
