#20028: sorting of number field elements
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: cremona | Owner:
Type: defect | Status: new
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-7.1
Component: number fields | Resolution:
Keywords: sort number field | Merged in:
elements | Reviewers:
Authors: | Work issues:
Report Upstream: N/A | Commit:
Branch: u/cremona/20028 | f9f6b99b09fc6c5183d2fe7a82e4f27e957f059c
Dependencies: | Stopgaps:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by nbruin):
Replying to [comment:19 cremona]:
> It is odd to me that sorted(X) has the side effect of changing a set to
a list
The wonders of python's ducktyping: "sorted" accepts an iterable and
returns the contents of the iterable as a sorted list. A finite set is an
iterable.
> but now that we know that we just make it into a list regardless of
whether we are able to sort it.
Uhm. I don't have a problem returning things in a list in no particular
order, but actively turning something that comes naturally in a set into a
list just for the sake of it sounds wrong. If the routine you're getting
your data from returns a set, perhaps you should too? or perhaps that
routine benefits from returning a list instead? This doesn't necessarily
need to be resolved here, but bear in mind that postponing a cleaner
resolution is the process through which cruft builds up in sage.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/20028#comment:22>
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.
