#20940: LatticePoset: add is_sectionally_complemented()
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: jmantysalo | Owner:
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_review
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-7.3
Component: combinatorics | Resolution:
Keywords: | Merged in:
Authors: Jori Mäntysalo | Reviewers:
Report Upstream: N/A | Work issues:
Branch: | Commit:
u/jmantysalo/sectionally_complemented|
abfcae83def761c57b61313335c0ce0ded864457
Dependencies: | Stopgaps:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by jmantysalo):
Replying to [comment:16 kdilks]:
> If it's not particular consistent/canonical, then I'm ok with it the way
it is.
Or maybe we are now making the standard. Sometimes there might exists a
"yes"-certificate, sometimes "no"-certificate, and sometimes both. Hence
we can not have strictly unified interface. Always returning a tuple with
Boolean value in first position is most close we can do.
> Under {{{OUTPUT}}}, I think the two possibilities for {{{certificate}}}
should be separate bullet points, and the default possibility
({{{certificate=False}}}) should be listed first.
Arghs. Whatever, as long as it is consistent.
> I also don't especially like the usage of {{{e}}} and {{{e_}}} as
variable names, but don't really have a justifiable reason to make you
change it.
I can change those.
--
Ticket URL: <https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/20940#comment:18>
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.
