On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 08:32:46AM -0400, Jason Bandlow wrote: > Thanks. I have some reasons why I would like keys to implement > __contains__, but I guess it will be easier to talk about this in > Toronto. I'd thought about the list case and don't have a really good > answer, although possibly the right behavior could somehow be decided > during __init__ ...
Yep. Family should definitely accept keys where containment is not possible to test (maybe not even iteration). But when it is possible *and* cheap, then adding more sanity checks upon getitem would be better. Let's indeed discuss this in Toronto. > >> On a related note, the following *really* looks like a bug to me: > > > This is clearly a bug ! Thanks for pointing this out. > > This is now > > http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/8822 Thanks! Please make sure that this get fixed while we are in Toronto :-) Cheers, Nicolas -- Nicolas M. Thiéry "Isil" <nthi...@users.sf.net> http://Nicolas.Thiery.name/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-combinat-devel" group. To post to this group, send email to sage-combinat-de...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-combinat-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-combinat-devel?hl=en.
