#18223: cartesian products with orders
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
       Reporter:  dkrenn             |        Owner:
           Type:  enhancement        |       Status:  needs_work
       Priority:  major              |    Milestone:  sage-6.7
      Component:  categories         |   Resolution:
       Keywords:  sd67               |    Merged in:
        Authors:  Daniel Krenn       |    Reviewers:  Benjamin Hackl
Report Upstream:  N/A                |  Work issues:
         Branch:  u/dkrenn/cat       |       Commit:
  /cartesian-product-posets          |  e87db1a0f635bb81e3510dfa7ca1617e31462380
   Dependencies:  #18586             |     Stopgaps:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------

Comment (by dkrenn):

 Replying to [comment:19 vdelecroix]:
 > 5. Instead of `order=components` I would use `order=product` which is
 the standard name (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_order
 wikipedia]). And put it first in your list in view of comment 4.

 Changed.

 > 6. Why
 > {{{
 > super(CartesianProductPosets, self).__init__(sets, category, **kwargs)
 > from sage.categories.posets import Posets
 > self._refine_category_(Posets())
 > }}}
 >   instead of
 > {{{
 > category = category.join(Posets())
 > CartesianProduct.__init__(sets, category, **kwargs)
 > }}}
 >   I guess that the refine category operation is highly non trivial
 (perhaps even sloppy).

 Yes, it was kind of sloppy. Changed now.

 > 7. (from your doctest) This is ugly
 > {{{
 > sage: QQ.CartesianProduct =
 sage.sets.cartesian_product.CartesianProductPosets
 > }}}
 >   Is this the way we are supposed to use to construct cartesian product
 of posets!?

 This changes, once `QQ` has category `Posets` as well (#19269).

 > 8. Why not implementing `_richcmp_` (see #18305)? You would end up with
 less code.

 Skipped; see comment above.

 > 9. It is always (should always be) faster to use `x <= y` instead of
 `x.__le__(y)`. You avoid a lookup.

 Ok, thanks for this hint.

--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/18223#comment:26>
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.

Reply via email to