#18511: LatticePoset: add is_sublattice()
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: jmantysalo | Owner:
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_review
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-wishlist
Component: combinatorics | Resolution:
Keywords: | Merged in:
Authors: Jori Mäntysalo | Reviewers:
Report Upstream: N/A | Work issues:
Branch: | Commit:
u/jmantysalo/latticeposet__add_is_sublattice__|
9f1e2e7cff9151477fe8456cf041d8a5bd32cef6
Dependencies: | Stopgaps:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Changes (by jmantysalo):
* status: new => needs_review
Comment:
Replying to [comment:8 ncohen]:
> > OK. How about the name of the function?
>
> I'd say that it is fine. You think it's wrong in some way?
Semantics are wrong if A.is_sublattice(B) means that B is a sublattice of
A. Changed to `has_sublattice`. I also removed possibility to check of
being a really sublattice, i.e. input is only assumed to be a list or
like.
> Could you please merge the two? The second function, by itself, is
incorrect.
I corrected the (stupid) bug in hasse_diagram.
If I constantly call `meet()` it will slow down computation. If I directly
reference to `_meet`, I'll break encapsulation. Then for example changing
hasse_diagram to use list of lists instead of matrix will break the
function.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/18511#comment:12>
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.
