On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 02:05:21PM -0800, Anne Schilling wrote:
> No. It is really a different poset, see:
> ...
> which returns the original poset. But to_poset gives Q from the above
> computation.
Ok; out of curiosity, why do you need the relabelled poset for?
> > The elements of L would simply be represented as plain lists. See:
> What would be the advantage of this?
No need for a linear extension class. No need for coercing/converting
them back and forth. But any operation needs to go through the parent
(L.blah(l) instead of l.blah()). Which approach is more natural
depends much on the context (like when we write down mathematics),
which is why we support both. At the end, all I can recommend is to
listen to the code; it will tell you.
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.
