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. 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.
