> > Also, I agree Nathan has a point with the cycle notation. It shouln't be a > single cycle but a list. There is still the problem of backward compatibily. > I don't consider that we have to stay backward-compatible with past bugs. But we can have the usual 1-year 'deprecationwarning' whenever anybody creates a Permutation from a tuple. I find it worse, but that's the Sage way.
> Nathan, I would be glad if you could give *some* credit to the people who > use permutations the way they are and listen when we tell you: we need them > to start at 1!! > This thread has been created because Nicolas is implementing a workaround for this "standard" in Matrices. Doesn't it scream that the standard is bad ? A workaround in the very same software ! If I were a reviewer for this patch, I would set the ticket to needs_work only because "the matrix file is no place to parse permutation input. Use the class that already exists for that. If it does not do what you want then update it, but this code does not belong to the matrix files". Still left unanswered: sage: Permutation([1,2,3])[1] 2 sage: Permutation([1,2,3])(1) 1 Is there a consensus here that this is a sound behaviour ? How do you want me to believe that the current 1-based syntax is the best to not confuse beginners when it creates behaviours like that ? 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.
