#18109: IntegerListLex better not be a parent
---------------------------------+------------------------
Reporter: vdelecroix | Owner:
Type: defect | Status: new
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-6.6
Component: combinatorics | Resolution:
Keywords: | Merged in:
Authors: | Reviewers:
Report Upstream: N/A | Work issues:
Branch: | Commit:
Dependencies: | Stopgaps:
---------------------------------+------------------------
Comment (by nthiery):
- I believe we should rephrase this ticket as "extract the
`IntegerListsLex` *iterator* as a standalone tool that depends on
nothing but `Python`/`Cython`". In fact this could go as far as making
it a standalone library in e.g. C++.
We want to keep the parent to model the set itself, ask questions
like cardinality or building the polyhedron, do constructions on top
of it (e.g. use it as indexing set for a vector space), etc.
#18056 would be a good occasion to handle this part.
- Being able to specify an element constructor is a useful feature as
well. What we need to discuss here is whether we want to switch to
using lists (or tuples!) by default.
- To remove `__classcall__` we need to wait until the end of the
deprecation period. To remove `global_options` we need to wait for
the subclasses using it to be refactored to not impose this burden
on `IntegerListsLex`.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/18109#comment:1>
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.
