#18411: get rid of CartesianProduct
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
Reporter: | Owner:
vdelecroix | Status: needs_review
Type: | Milestone: sage-6.9
enhancement | Resolution:
Priority: major | Merged in:
Component: | Reviewers: Nicolas Thiéry
combinatorics | Work issues:
Keywords: | Commit:
Authors: | 22f8b77a3cc2223863396f8d422fbbeec51d1656
Vincent Delecroix | Stopgaps:
Report Upstream: N/A |
Branch: |
public/18411 |
Dependencies: |
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
Comment (by vdelecroix):
Replying to [comment:40 nthiery]:
> Replying to [comment:39 vdelecroix]:
>
> Maybe we should eventually make the distinction between sets, sets
admitting an iterator, and sets with a distinguished enumeration.
Ideally, we would do a conditional inheritance based on the presence of
`__iter__`. I am not sure it is worth it to complicate anymore the various
set categories with an `IterableSets`.
> For now, let's say that this will do, unless someone has some additional
insight to provide.
>
> Still, any thought about moving this feature to
`Sets.Finite.CartesianProducts`?
Before it was in `EnumeratedSets.CartesianProducts` and not
`EnumeratedSets.Finite.CartesianProducts`. So I tend to prefer the place
it is. Of course, we should support better infinite factors.
Vincent
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/18411#comment:41>
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.
