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. ThiƩry "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.

Reply via email to