[sage-support] Re: Boolean operators... Implication ?

2010-08-09 Thread Nathann Cohen
This can of course be written (not g.is_forest() and g.has_even_cycle()) Ok, ok, I know... Let's make it g.is_forest() or g.has_even_cycle() ^^; Nathann -- To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

Re: [sage-support] Re: Boolean operators... Implication ?

2010-08-09 Thread Robert Bradshaw
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 9:40 PM, Nathann Cohen nathann.co...@gmail.com wrote: This can of course be written (not g.is_forest() and g.has_even_cycle()) Ok, ok, I know... Let's make it g.is_forest() or g.has_even_cycle() Yes, one could create an infix operator, but I think the above is much more

Re: [sage-support] Re: Boolean operators... Implication ?

2010-08-09 Thread Nathann Cohen
Yes, one could create an infix operator, but I think the above is much more clear than having to learn yet more notation. Explicit is better than implicit. Simple is better than complex. Indeed, but I often use the trick sum( some_list_of_booleans ) to count the number of True. I was afraid