On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 07:55:42AM -0800, Anne Schilling wrote: > On 2/17/12 12:13 AM, Florent Hivert wrote: > >>> By the way: changing P.linear_extensions() to return an enumerated set > >>> rather than a plain list could make sense, assuming there is no speed > >>> loss. This might require a bit of cythonification; maybe using > >>> ClonableArray will be enough. It's slightly backward incompatible (it > >>> does not print the same). > >> > >> Why did you make the choice to print differently in ClonableArray as > >> opposed to CombinatorialObject?
> I do not know. Nicolas mentioned that it was different and not backward > compatible. Oops, my sentence jumped back and forth between two topics. I meant that you would get: sage: P.linear_extensions() The linear extensions of the poset ... as opposed to: sage: P.linear_extensions() [[...], [...], [...]] The elements themselves will print the same. 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-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.