#19123: LatticePoset: add is_vertically_decomposable
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: jmantysalo | Owner:
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_review
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-6.9
Component: combinatorics | Resolution:
Keywords: | Merged in:
Authors: Jori Mäntysalo | Reviewers:
Report Upstream: N/A | Work issues:
Branch: | Commit:
u/jmantysalo/vertically_decomposable2|
0abc93861d121a172abfb11203821d34fecfd78e
Dependencies: | Stopgaps:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by ncohen):
Jori,
I thought a bit before answering your email, because the reason I had not
done
anything on the ticket during the last 6 days is that I had chosen to not
work
on it anymore. I do not often "forget" things like tickets in
needs_review: my
mail inbox contains all the things I must attend to, and they all remain
there
until I do what I think I should do with them.
Among the reasons that led me there is that nothing specific makes your
code
invalid, and I have no reason to ask you to change it just because it does
not
suit my taste. I like things short, simple, concise. Three functions for
only
one feature is beyond me, it angers me by itself.
If I were to write it, you would have one Lattice method which would
directly
work on the hasse diagram, with a `return_recomposition` boolean flag to
return
lists instead of boolean answers. One function, 20 lines, end of the
story.
Right now, the Lattice method `vertical_decomposition` contains around 20
lines
of code, none of which has the slightest interest to me. It's just
wrapping
things into other things, and testing things that are already tested
elsewhere.
What I know, however, is that it is impossible for you to get any kind of
code
into Sage and to work with it unless you have somebody to review your
code. I
surely know that. Depending on what I work on, depending on the times, it
is
either easy or hard to get anything in there, and from time to time I
think that
it would be better if you were allowed to put any code that you like into
Sage
without needing reviewers like me who drag their feet at every occasion.
Also, I admit that I do not have the energy to discuss the implementation
details endlessly, and I also hate that this process may require you to
implement code only because the only reviewer you have has a different
taste.
Truth is, I don't want to be the reason why you cannot work properly on
Sage's
code, and I don't have a lot of ways out as not many would do the
reviewing job
otherwise. So I will try this: I will implement this as is the most
natural to
me, and you can feel free to not use it if you do not like it. Let's see
how it
works.
Sorry for the painful reviews.
Nathann
P.S.: the code is at u/ncohen/19123
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/19123#comment:33>
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.
