Hey Nicolas, If it was just for me, I would forbid to compare with '<' two objects > with different parents (possibly with some well chosen exceptions like > 1/2 < 1). > > In other words: if you get into a situation where you have a serious > doubt about the semantic (and thus probably even more so for the > caller), I vote for just raising an exception. That's the safest. > > Thoughts anyone else? >
The more I think about it and how to implement it, the more I feel like we should just leave the ordering alone (but add more documentation and warnings) considering that we should keep comparisons with lists (which default to lex ordering since it upcalls to CombinatorialObject's comparisons) and having to keep track of which comparison actually gets called for consistency (i.e. order matters). If that doesn't make sense, I can put up an example later tonight. In all honesty, I almost feel like any comparison should do a coercion into a common parent and check there, and if not possible, then raise an exception. However this is likely to be a major overhaul and break a few (a lot) of things... Best, Travis -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-combinat-devel" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sage-combinat-devel/-/PcoftGMPxlwJ. 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.
