#20402: Make subword complexes compatible with real reflection groups
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: stumpc5 | Owner:
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_work
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-7.2
Component: combinatorics | Resolution:
Keywords: reflection group, | Merged in:
coxeter group, subword complex, | Reviewers:
days80 | Work issues:
Authors: Christian Stump | Commit:
Report Upstream: N/A | 283ccf598079150e16406adc6a5a55b519f8ec26
Branch: u/stumpc5/20402 | Stopgaps:
Dependencies: #11187 |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by stumpc5):
Replying to [comment:29 nthiery]:
> In any cases, we should keep consistency with Weyl groups. It's
currently `w.action(l)` there (not `w.act(l)` btw); if we switch to
`_act_on_`, then we should do it consistently everywhere.
Term-wise, I think that `w` acts on `l`, while there is an action of `W`
on `l`. But I am equally okay to use ``w.action(l)`` for consistency.
I don't get your point of switching: what is wrong with having the method
`action` and then using this method in the body of `_act_on_`?
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/20402#comment:31>
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.
