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. ThiƩry "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