Hi Robert,
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 09:36:18AM -0800, Robert Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 9:12 AM, Nicolas M. Thiery
> <nicolas.thi...@u-psud.fr> wrote:
> > Rationale:
> >
> > (a) For the option name: that might be just me, but I find
> > ``generators`` far more natural than ``connecting_set``.
> > This specifies an alternative set of generators for (a subgroup
> > of) G.
>
> If it's just the name of the option, I'm fine with generators or connecting
> set.
Ok. Further votes anyone?
> > (b) For removing connecting_set = a: this feature cannot be
> > implemented in a robust way. If a is a tuple or an iterator, how
> > can cayley_graph determines generically whether a is an iterable
> > of elements of G, or some data that can be coerced into a single
> > element of G?
>
> I really thought you meant that {generators, connecting_set} = [a] was
> being deprecated. That's obviously ridiculous.
Definitely.
> I misunderstood what you originally wrote, and I was in quite a hurry,
> so I had little time to write a reply. You are completely correct, in
> that the interrogative tone was quite by mistake. I was just very
> surprised at the moment by my mistaken impression of what this patch
> did. Please accept my apology. :)
I gladly take my share of responsibility in throwing in the confusion
in the first place :-)
Cheers,
Nicolas
--
Nicolas M. Thiéry "Isil" <nthi...@users.sf.net>
http://Nicolas.Thiery.name/
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URL: http://www.sagemath.org
