#18244: mysterious doctest failure on dyck_word.py
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
Reporter: | Owner:
vdelecroix | Status: needs_review
Type: | Milestone: sage-6.7
defect | Resolution:
Priority: major | Merged in:
Component: | Reviewers:
documentation | Work issues:
Keywords: | Commit:
Authors: | 5dfb8363c6fe1920dbaa09e3bae1e8f5a76be34c
Report Upstream: N/A | Stopgaps:
Branch: |
public/18244 |
Dependencies: |
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
Comment (by behackl):
Replying to [comment:11 SimonKing]:
> I somehow disagree with that analysis that it is a **problem** that
`cardinality` returns a Python integer. Yes, the category test suite
verifies that `cardinality` returns a Sage integer. However (and that's
why I Cc Nicolas) I don't think that the test should be so restrictive.
>
> Hence, would it not be a better solution to modify the test so that it
accepts both sage and python integers (and infinity)?
'Problem' meant that it is/was the reason for the failing doctest.
Nevertheless, I'm also in favour of `cardinality` returning Integers. I
also agree that we should change `isinstance(card, Integer)`. But I'm not
sure about returning `infinity`: within the category
`FiniteEnumeratedSets` I don't think that `cardinality` should return
`infinity`. Or should it?
In any case, should this be still part of this ticket?
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/18244#comment:15>
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.
