#18109: Restructure IntegerListLex code
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: vdelecroix | Owner:
Type: defect | Status: new
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-6.6
Component: combinatorics | Resolution:
Keywords: | Merged in:
Authors: Jeroen Demeyer | Reviewers:
Report Upstream: N/A | Work issues:
Branch: | Commit:
u/jdemeyer/ticket/18109 | cda4b75087577ff9583411799f8832ccf2e72866
Dependencies: #18181, #18184 | Stopgaps:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by nthiery):
Replying to [comment:18 jdemeyer]:
> I think that we really should support `list(IntegerLists(10^100,
length=1))` because in Sage, we ''always'' support large integers if
possible.
That's part of why I am thinking of C++; then we can just have a
templated iterator, and depending on the input we can choose one
instantiation or the other.
> In any case, changing this is certainly outside the scope of this
> ticket (it could be done in #18055 or #18056). Here, I just want to
> reorganize the code without changing the implementation.
Sounds reasonable indeed.
----
New commits:
||[http://git.sagemath.org/sage.git/commit/?id=cda4b75087577ff9583411799f8832ccf2e72866
cda4b75]||{{{Restructure IntegerListsLex code}}}||
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/18109#comment:22>
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.
