2012/5/16, Nicolas M. Thiery <nicolas.thi...@u-psud.fr>: > On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 11:19:11PM -0700, Travis Scrimshaw wrote: >> So the old permutations patch was sufficient (minus a few >> doc-strings >> tests which were in #9831 that is no longer in the queue), and I >> couldn't >> produce an error with WeightedIntegerVectors. However there is still >> the >> previously noted conflict with improve_constructors_of_iet-vd.patch, >> and >> I'd like to just copy/paste that code into this patch (its simple and >> elegant). Yet the queue produces duplicate code when the vd.patch is >> applied. So does anyone know if I'd be safe to just remove this from >> the >> vd.patch, otherwise who should I contact about this? > > From `hg log`, this patch hasn't changed since september 2011. So yes, > that sounds safe. I guess Vincent Delecroix will even be pleased not > to have to handle this hunk anymore (Vincent: please complain if not!).
Please. Do it. No problem on my side. Cheers, Vincent -- 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.
