#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                |  3363aeb30397b74178949e0d9fbba292e68b65c8
   Dependencies:                     |     Stopgaps:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------

Comment (by nthiery):

 Replying to [comment:422 ncohen]:
 > > We definitely should keep it around for benchmarking purposes at least
 > > until #18055 is finished. I am fine adding the removal of
 > > `integer_list_old` to the todo list for this ticket.
 >
 > I do not see the point. You can checkout Sage 6.5 whenever you like if
 you ever need to benchmark this old (and broken) code.

 Yes, and wait for the recompilation. Or keep yet another copy of Sage
 around just for this. It also makes it more complicated to compare
 outputs. Really, there is no risks associated to keeping it around for
 a bit more time, and *not* keeping it is just another useless hurdle
 in the way of those who will be working on #18055.

 > > A user reading this documentation is likely to know about integer
 > > partitions, compositions or such.
 >
 > You cannot make assumptions like that. A user might find this class
 because he was redirected there after reading the doc of `IntegerVectors`
 (for instance).

 I am making no assumption. The user does not *need* to know about
 integer partitions. But if he does, he gets an additional hint.

 > > I am fine making it into a SEEALSO if that's ok to put one before
 > > INPUT.
 >
 > Works for me.

 Ok, will do.

--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/17979#comment:446>
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