2015-03-18 12:40 GMT+01:00 Mike Zabrocki <mike.zabro...@gmail.com>: > That would make sense. My preference is that (at least for values less > than 15) the default is that the output is sorted and this can be > controlled by the optional parameter. > > I think about how many times that I test symmetric function identities on > partitions and realize that patterns that indicate a relation to dominance > order will be a lot less clear if the order is not something natural. I > wouldn't want the interface to be too complicated, but the more I think > about it the more I realize that my personal use of partitions is very > dependent on this order. >
I would tend to agree with you. The order wasn't documented but I'm pretty sure many people writing some personal code using partitions still rely on the order somehow. I feel a good choice would be to give the "nice" order by default and some parameter to obtain the optimized one. > > On Wednesday, 18 March 2015 04:20:15 UTC-4, Samuel Lelievre wrote: >> >> Nathann Cohen wrote: >>> >>> Hello, >>> >>> > I think that Partitions should be output in either lex (or possibly >>> reverse >>> > lex) since this order is compatible with dominance order. >>> >>> I only want to bring to your attention that deciding in which order >>> the partitions should be returned is not free in terms of >>> computational time. >>> >>> The current implementation returns them in lex order, but returns >>> *many* wrong answers too (see #17548). >>> >>> In order to fix that, Jeroen is re-implementing this feature through a >>> routine that enumerates the integer points of a polytope (see #17920), >>> probably without any control over the order in which they are >>> returned. >>> >>> Thus, in order for Partition/Composition to return them in a specific >>> order we must list them *all* before returning the first of them. This >>> can really mean hours (or no results at all) instead of seconds on big >>> instances. >>> >> >> So would it make sense to have an optional parameter sorted=None, >> which one could set to 'lex' or 'revlex' to get them in a desired order. >> The documentation could warn about the issues you just raised. >> > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "sage-combinat-devel" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to sage-combinat-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to sage-combinat-devel@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-combinat-devel. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-combinat-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-combinat-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-combinat-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-combinat-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
