#10527: Implementation of quiver mutation type
-----------------------------------------------+----------------------------
Reporter: stumpc5 | Owner: sage-combinat
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_review
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-5.0
Component: combinatorics | Resolution:
Keywords: quiver mutation type days38 | Work issues:
Report Upstream: N/A | Reviewers: Hugh Thomas
Authors: Christian Stump | Merged in:
Dependencies: #10349 | Stopgaps:
-----------------------------------------------+----------------------------
Comment (by hthomas):
Replying to [comment:27 hthomas]:
> Replying to [comment:26 stumpc5]:
> > > Here's another question: for the most part, the third parameter is
redundant. I think the third parameter should only be used for the Kac
convention (in affine root systems) and the Saito convention (in elliptic
root systems).
> >
> > Yes, that's right. The reason we still use it is in order to make it a
priori clear for the user what kind of type he/she is using: None for
finite 1 for affine, 2 for mutation finite, and 3 for mutation infinite.
But if you think that's too much, or not needed, we can as well delete it.
You can maybe ask for another opinion on that at the sage days.
>
> Okay, I'll get a second opinion. But note that the system you are using
is actually less straightforward than that, since if, for example, you
invoke a finite mutation type via a family like T, you have to enter a 3
anyhow.
Chris Berg agreed with me when I talked to him just now, and Nicolas also
agreed with me last night (though I guess I didn't put the question quite
as precisely to Nicolas).
Also, Nicolas suggested that the names of the types be more obvious. It's
a matter of style, I guess, whether you prefer R2 or Rank2, TR or
Triangle, GR or Grassmannian. I think the latter is more inviting to
someone who is unfamiliar with the code. But I don't really have a strong
feeling about this. (Nicolas's suggestion was based on a quick
description of the situation from me, so it could be that he would have a
different opinion if he looked into it himself.)
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/10527#comment:28>
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.
