#20669: LatticePoset: add function to get all sublattices
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: jmantysalo | Owner:
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_work
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-7.3
Component: combinatorics | Resolution:
Keywords: latticeposet | Merged in:
Authors: Jori Mäntysalo | Reviewers: Travis Scrimshaw
Report Upstream: N/A | Work issues:
Branch: | Commit:
u/jmantysalo/all_sublattices | 1bb87bd775eece24a586b9ccedb7dfd6ca0b5488
Dependencies: | Stopgaps:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by tscrim):
Replying to [comment:8 jmantysalo]:
> Replying to [comment:7 tscrim]:
> > However, meet and join doesn't quite make sense to have it there
mathematically AFAIK. Although by cythonizing `hasse_diagram.py`, we
should get most of possible speed without doing really much in the way of
changes.
>
> True, but I think that there was obstackle for cythonizing. Something
with inheritance, I think; I discussed about this with Nathann Cohen maybe
a two years ago.
I don't see anything that would prevent a cythonization; the
`HasseDiagram` class only has single inheritance (and cython probably has
improved since when you discussed this).
> > > Basic questions about all reviews: 1) Is Sage better with this or
without? 2) If with, is there some ''easy'' steps to make it still better?
> >
> > I am going to treat this as you telling me ''your'' process for
reviewing. Otherwise I would take that a very insulting comment to me
which you are telling me how to do ''my'' review.
>
> Sorry. I don't intend to insult. (But also I does not so much english
words to make my expressions smoother.)
I know you didn't, but it first seemed like you were trying to tell me how
to review this. My reply was condescending, to which I apologize as well.
> I was just trying to say what developer guide says: "Please refrain from
additional feature requests or open-ended discussion about alternative
implementations."
I don't think we are in an open-ended discussion because I am proposing a
(single) concrete/explicit alternative implementation. While I am not
strictly opposed to the current implementation, I think there is a
relatively easy way to improve it. I might have some time to change the
algorithm today, if you're okay with it (I'm on French time for this week
and the next).
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/20669#comment:9>
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.
