> The Permutation0 might be a good idea, I don't know... It wouldn't change the > tuple vs. list thing which is used to distinguish between the cycle notation > and the word notation.
The cycle notation is incorrect too, as a permutation is a collection of cycles. It also removes the need to distinguish between tuples and lists. > Also, Nathann, please do not assume that you represent all the Sage coders. Look at the code. Those +1 -1 everywhere are a clear sign. The fact that we use different standard in the same software is another one. The fact that Nicolas implements functions to use both is another one. The fact that it is hard to handle both syntaxes at the same time yet another one. > I'm a Sage coder and user, and I use 1-Permutation. I use them ALL THE TIME > and I need them. You use permutations. it is fine. permutations are useful. I'm not for removing permutations, I am for having them 0-based. > The fact is that in the math world, in every single paper about the > symmetric group, the permutations are 1-Permutations and it makes sense to > have them. When you have a set of size n in a math paper, the points are labelled 1...n. On computers everything is 0-indexed. And nobody died because of that. > As Volker says, it's an old debate and you can't just erase everyone else's > work and point of views because it suits you. The arguments you give me are all contradicted by the fact that arrays are 0-based. It creates the very same problems, but changing having 1-based arrays is not even an open question. You are just enforcing a different syntax for permutations, and this is bad. It shows. Nathann -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
