#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 | 2c7019c64047f5f84d89d72fec81a7af483cdc66
Dependencies: | Stopgaps:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by nthiery):
Replying to [comment:385 ncohen]:
> Have you had the impression that some of our previous requests were
> abusive? We try to understand your code, make sure that it is
> correct maintenable and thus that it will be easy to understand and
> work on it in the future.
> Many of the things that seem obvious to the author are not easily
> deduced when you only look at the code, and unexpected design choices
> often raise more questions.
Abusive, no: they all had to be handled at some point or the
other. Urgent, I did wonder for some of them: I agree that we
absolutely want the code to be correct (at least to the best of our
knowledge) for this rc. And this of course requires a complete
understanding of it by the reviewers, and clarification of the design
choices. But maybe for some of the issues it's sufficient, once things
are clarified, to leave a note in upcoming tickets for the next step
that need to be done.
The big thing is that I have the impression to be holding off the
upcoming rc, and that's rather uncomfortable. Also having a stable
base here would allow me to move on to the following tasks, in
particular working of the merge and review of #17920, as well as your
ticket about IntegerVectors. And also would allow me or others to work
on to the follow up tickets.
> I personally gave up raising some arguments (that still seem
> legitimate to me) only to lessen the load on this ticket.
I appreciate this! Please add these comments to the followup tickets
(or some new one if appropriate), for I want to hear about them.
> I still plan to read the code you implement totally (I haven't done that
yet), and I will probably have more time to do so next week.
Great, thanks!
From the many discussions with you, Jeroen, Bryan, and Anne and
myself, it seems that the code has been scrutinized quite some. As
Jeroen pointed out, there are still cases that could be handled in
theory, and that the code rejects at this point. But outside of those
situations, I pretty much trust that the code gives correct result.
Which achieves the original goal of this ticket.
Cheers,
Nicolas
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/17979#comment:391>
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.
