#19659: Poset: inverse function of ordinal_sum()
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: jmantysalo | Owner:
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_review
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-7.0
Component: combinatorics | Resolution:
Keywords: poset | Merged in:
Authors: Jori Mäntysalo | Reviewers:
Report Upstream: N/A | Work issues:
Branch: | Commit:
u/jmantysalo/develop | 01f9e1c6bb502e6044181c856bcb8984718fd237
Dependencies: | Stopgaps:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by jmantysalo):
Replying to [comment:22 ncohen]:
> > Is this any more clear?
>
> To me it is, but I won't be surprised if it is a matter of taste. It
also avoids the 'for/else' trick that I never met anywhere except in
Python.
I can change that, if you want. But actually the code at one function
level can always be optimized later. Real question is how to arrange this
code. I think that it is fruitless to think about `posets.py` vs.
`hasse_diagram.py` in context of one specific function. If we want to
change it, then we would need to think those files (and `lattices.py`) as
a whole.
So actually I want an answer to two questions: 1) Is Sage better with or
without this patch? 2) Is there some trivial things that would make this
patch better? Those two are my criteria for giving a positive review.
`break-else` is really a python special feature. Quite nice sometimes with
this kind on mathematical code.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/19659#comment:23>
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 https://groups.google.com/group/sage-trac.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
