On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 12:18:40PM -0700, Volker Braun wrote: > On Tuesday, September 9, 2014 6:07:49 PM UTC+1, Nicolas M. Thiéry wrote: > > > > I agree it's not great. But do you have a better proposal? > > > How about being explicit, aka the principle of least astonishment? > M.permute_columns(sigma, base=0) with base=1 being the default. In either > case an error is raised if the range does not fit. Once we have separate > 0-based permutations we can make the default = do the right thing and > deprecate the optional parameter. yes, that's a good idea. I also would prefer having Permutation0 and Permutation1 classes, and Permutation=Permutation1 by default (so that you can just say Permutation=Permutation0 right at the beginning of your code, and proceed as you like).
Dima -- 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.
