On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 07:53:03PM -0700, Andrey Novoseltsev wrote:
> How about "lt" for "<" and "le" for "<="? I think these are more
> standard.
That is to follow the convention for operator.* and the .__*__
methods. That sounds good to me. Everybody ok?
> And just to make sure I understand it correctly: since elements are
> not aware of the poset, it means that I can have
>
> P1.lt(a,b)
> True
> P2.lt(b,a)
> True
>
> if, say, P2 is P1 with reversed order, correct?
Precisely. As well as a>b, or not.
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-devel@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.
