On Mar 24, 3:47 am, "Nicolas M. Thiery" <nicolas.thi...@u-psud.fr>
wrote:
>         Hi Poset fans,
>
> I just recalled that there already exists two categories
> PartialyOrderedSets and PartialyOrderedMonoids, with aliases
> OrderedSets and OrderedMonoids. At this point, those categories are
> stubs, and are not used anywere in the Sage code.
>
> Since the terminology "Poset" (rather than "PartialyOrderedSet") is
> already used a lot in Sage, should I make PartialyOrderedSets and
> OrderedSets deprecated aliases to Posets?
>
> What about monoids? PoMonoids does not look that good :-) Should we
> just keep OrderedMonoids, and deprecate PartialyOrderedMonoids?
>
> For the ``posets versus Posets'' discussion, I currently implemented
> the following, at this point mostly for backward compatibility:
>
>     Examples of posets::
>
>         sage: Posets.BooleanLattice(3)
>         Finite lattice containing 8 elements
>         sage: Posets.ChainPoset(3)
>         Finite lattice containing 3 elements
>         sage: Posets.RandomPoset(17,.15)
>         Finite poset containing 17 elements
>         ...
>
>     The category of all posets::
>
>         sage: Posets()
>         Category of posets
>
>     The enumerated set of all posets on `3` vertices, up to an
>     isomorphism:
>
>         sage: Posets(3)
>         Posets containing 3 vertices
>
> Doing Posets.<tab> gives the list of examples and nothing else (up to `mro`):
>
>     Posets.AntichainPoset Posets.IntegerCompositions 
> Posets.RestrictedIntegerPartitions        Posets.mro
>     Posets.BooleanLattice Posets.IntegerPartitions   
> Posets.SymmetricGroupBruhatIntervalPoset
>     Posets.ChainPoset     Posets.PentagonPoset       
> Posets.SymmetricGroupBruhatOrderPoset
>     Posets.DiamondPoset   Posets.RandomPoset         
> Posets.SymmetricGroupWeakOrderPoset
>
> Doing P = Posets(); P.<tab> gives the methods of this category, but
> not the examples.
>
> And posets is an alias for Posets.
>
> How does this all sound?

Awesome!

Out of curiosity - why does Poset.mro have to stay in the list of
constructors?

Thank you,
Andrey


>
> Cheers,
>                                 Nicolas
> --
> Nicolas M. Thi�ry "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.

Reply via email to