#15621: Implement regular partition tuples
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: tscrim | Owner: sage-combinat
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_review
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-6.10
Component: combinatorics | Resolution:
Keywords: regular partition | Merged in:
tuples | Reviewers:
Authors: Travis Scrimshaw | Work issues:
Report Upstream: N/A | Commit:
Branch: | f113a0fa7344c1f1c86d74c216c132c75c46e7a1
public/combinat/regular_partition_tuples| Stopgaps:
Dependencies: #15525 |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by tscrim):
I also noticed some places where containment checking led to errors being
raised and took care of where I saw those on the last commit.
I also elected to not have a level 1 partition tuple register as being
contained in `Partitions` as getting equivalent forms of partition tuples,
such as `[[4,3,3,1]]` and `([4,3,3,1])` (as a tuple/list of a list) seems
fraught with issues and lots of checks that would likely cause slowdowns
in the containment checks. If you are checking for containment, you
probably are going to convert afterwards, so I would actually say the more
pythonic way is to try the conversion and then handle the raised error if
it cannot be done.
Perhaps more succinctly, I don't think there is necessarily a perfect
solution with the current implementation, but this is the best for our
current applications.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/15621#comment:19>
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.
