#10140: Base sage.geometry.cone on the Parma Polyhedra Library (PPL)
----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
Reporter: vbraun | Owner: mhampton
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_info
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-4.7
Component: geometry | Keywords: ppl
Author: Volker Braun | Upstream: N/A
Reviewer: Andrey Novoseltsev | Merged:
Work_issues: |
----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
Comment(by novoselt):
Why
{{{
lattice = rays[0].parent()
}}}
was replaced with
{{{
lattice = rays[0].parent().ambient_module()
}}}
on the new line 378? I think if the input `rays` live in some sublattice,
then the constructed cone also should live in the same sublattice. This
distinction is important e.g. for constructing dual cones (I don't think
that such duals will currently work, but it is not a reason to prohibit
using sublattices ;-))
There are also several doctests where you have replaced things like
`Cone([(0,0)])` with `Cone([], lattice=ToricLattice(2))` - what is your
objection against the first form? I think it is a convenient and natural
way to construct the origin cone, if you don't care about lattices.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/10140#comment:40>
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 post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-trac?hl=en.
