My reason for erroring out was to catch buggy code that might have slipped through the cracks.
I don't mind converting generators to lists, but that also means that infinite generators will then fail by filling all available memory. But at least it won't return a wrong answer ;-) On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 8:14:38 PM UTC, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 10:16:37AM -0800, Volker Braun wrote: > > I just got bitten by this one, so I would appreciate a review for my > fix: > > http://trac.sagemath.org/13764 > > I had a look at the patch, and it sounds reasonable indeed. Thanks! > > While we are at testing whether any of the input is a generator, what > about converting it to a tuple instead of raising an error? This > would enlarge the feature set, and we would not have to fix the code > of IntegerVectors. > > Cheers, > Nicolas > -- > Nicolas M. Thi�ry "Isil" <nth...@users.sf.net <javascript:>> > http://Nicolas.Thiery.name/ > -- 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/-/pSiNfcKOrSMJ. 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.
