#19221: Some new (n,2^k,1)-BIBD
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: ncohen | Owner:
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_info
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-6.9
Component: combinatorial | Resolution:
designs | Merged in:
Keywords: | Reviewers: Vincent Delecroix
Authors: Nathann Cohen | Work issues:
Report Upstream: N/A | Commit:
Branch: u/ncohen/19221 | 78d008dce6ad2f415dc703861b529f6fa0e95841
Dependencies: | Stopgaps:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by ncohen):
> hmm, I have done an analogous change to !ProjectiveGeometryDesign in
#19226, but I called coordinates "coordinates", not "labels", and I have
chosen no coordinates as the default. How about we unify this?
1) 'labels' occurs is many Sage methods, and so I chose this term as users
will after a time 'get used' to it. 'coordinates' is also meaningful in
the context of projective planes, but will not be meaningful for all
functions that [will/will not] add labels. And I would like to avoid this:
`Graph.is_tree(certificate=True),is_prime(get_data=True),Graph.is_strongly_regular(parameters=True),IncidenceStructrure.is_t_design(return_parameters=True)`.
In terms of interface, I think that 'certificate' everywhere would have
been better.
For the choice of coordinates, I made the usual choice: from most user-
friendly to least user-friendly. Like we have a 'check' argument (enabled
by default) that can be diabled if needed, like `Graph.edges()` returns
edge labels are `Graph.edges(labels=False)` does not.
> I also do not understand how an invasive change of changing the
behaviour to use by default coordinates for the
!DesarguesianProjectivePlaneDesign was done without an appropriate
deprecation...
Because it apparently does not break anything that was claimed previously
by its documentation. Also, because it is clearly an improvement.
> I also don't understand why there is a separate implementation of
DesarguesianProjectivePlaneDesign(q), which can be replaced by
ProjectiveGeometryDesign(2,1,q). How about just making
DesarguesianProjectivePlaneDesign into an alias to the latter?
If I remember correctly, the explanation to that lies in the running
times.
Nathann
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/19221#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.
