Hi Andrew and Travis, > The easy one first: should the reverse ordering also exist? That is, "reverse > lex", "reverse dominance", "reverse containment"? If people agree that it is > worth including these explicitly it would be > good if there was a systematic way to organise all of the orderings...will > let you know if I come up with something.
Yes, I think this is reasonable! > The second question is harder: is it intended that, ultimately, the order in > which the partitions are generated by the iterator will be compatible with > the order on the parent? If the ordering is part > of the parent then I think that this is a reasonable expectation but, of > course, it would be painful implement. > > What do people think is the "ideal" way this should work for any parent that > comes equipped with an (optionable) ordering? Basically you would like the iterator to return a linear extension of the ordering? That might be possible if by considering the poset given by the partial order. 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.
