On Jun 14, 9:46 am, Christian Stump <christian.st...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Thanks, Nicolas! With three opinions the majority is much more obvious > > than with two ;-) > > I recently used cones and got a little confused when my (obviously > "equal") cones where not equal with C1 == C2, but only "isomorphic". I > would also vote for the standard test being if two cones are equal as > sets. > > Best, Christian
Actually, for http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/10998 it may be necessary to have "==" mean "is" (I will look closer at that ticket shortly and will try to elaborate). It is important for associated constructions that rays of cones have some fixed order after creation, e.g. so that there is a clear and fast translation from rays to homogeneous variables and back, instead of having to use dictionaries indexed by rays and variables, so I don't think that representing cones as sets of rays is a good idea. Whether "==" respects the order is in a way a matter of taste, as long as it allows everything else to work... Andrey -- 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.
