#17979: Reimplementation of IntegerListsLex
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: aschilling | Owner:
Type: defect | Status: needs_review
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 | dcbad454879b348c727b87a46b0fef0e360f0471
Dependencies: | Stopgaps:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by nthiery):
Replying to [comment:290 jdemeyer]:
> Replying to [comment:283 nthiery]:
> > I am not sure I have an example under hand that would be finite
> > and not detected as such.
> Here are some:
> {{{
> IntegerListsLex(min_sum=1, floor=[1,2], max_part=1).list()
> IntegerListsLex(min_length=2, max_length=1).list()
> }}}
>
> (after more testing, it looks like these are essentially the ''only''
examples)
Cool, in the mean time we fixed both of them. We also looked at your
`is_trivialy_zero` function, and we indeed believe that all listed cases
there are treated one way or the other.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/17979#comment:295>
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.
