On 3/6/12 8:32 AM, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote: > On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 07:38:14AM -0800, Anne Schilling wrote: >> Thanks! Which convention should we use though for the new code on k-tableaux? >> I would say we should adopt (2), but then the behavior of k-tableaux would be >> different from Tableaux (which uses convention (1)). > > Good question. > > In case we would need to change one way or the other, it's usually > easier to move from less permissive to more permissive. Another way to > say this: accepting with 'in' elements that need coercion can be seen > as an extra feature; and it's easier for backward compatibility to add > new features than to remove them. > > So I would tend to go for (1). > > Another strong guide is to chose whichever is simpler to implement. > > Finally, it's perfectly fine to state in the documentation something > like: > > "the behavior of ``x in P`` when x is a ... is unspecified at this > stage and may change in the future".
Oops, sorry, I meant to say (1) for k-tableaux which is the strong membership checking. Currently Tableaux does not have that feature. Best, Anne -- 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.
