Hey Andrew, > > 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. >
I will do "reverse lex" (lex order read from right to left) and "reverse dominance" (which I presume is partial sums from right to left). However what is reverse containment? > 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. > For lex and dominance, I believe this shouldn't be a problem. Containment is slightly tricky, but I doubt its too horrible. The true problems might be with the reverse orderings, and that we might have to do something more complex. 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/-/CF7uQbxOcTcJ. 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.
