Hey,
In a few places, I think we already are assuming generators are for
finite lists. However I also think its better to use IterableFunctionCall
since if we do something like:
{{{
sage: L = CarteseanProduct(Partitions()) # Maybe for a better example
Partitions_all.__iter__()
sage: for x in L: print x
}}}
it doesn't break any different/more than
{{{
sage: for x in Partitions(): print x
}}}
Best,
Travis
On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 12:49:13 PM UTC-8, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 12:33:45PM -0800, Volker Braun wrote:
> > 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 ;-)
>
> Right. It's probably better to use IterableFunctionCall: then it would
> not fill up the memory at construction time. Of course the fill up
> will eventually occur when running through the CartesianProduct; but
> then the caller is just getting what he asked for :-)
>
> In fact, Vincent's Enumerated set from iterator would probably be
> better than IterableFunctionCall, but #12518 is still in needs review
> (volunteers?).
>
> 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/-/1Ku3o_DaUz0J.
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.
