It is not bluff Nathann. And it's no bluff either to say that many many valuable people would just stop using Sage if it stopped handling 1-based permutations. Sage is a mathematical software and it makes sense that it should print and accept inputs of the mathematical objects I use the way I use them in my math... As you know, I have no trouble understanding 0-based arrays, this is not the problem here. I'm not bluffing, I NEED those objects. I'm not sure what is so difficult for you to understand here.
0-based arrays are not "incompatible" with 1-based permutations. I'm sure that in the history of computer science, much more complicated data structures than 1-based permutations have been implemented... The way it is now is not that bad, in the sense that even so it's not good, I'm using it every day and it's very very useful for me (and for many others). I don't have major problems with it, it works completely fine for what I do with permutations. I understand it's not the case for everyone and I like clean / consistent code, so yes, it could be better designed, improved, etc. But I don't understand why 1-based permutations could not exist : we need a way to leave them here for the people who need them without letting them affect the people who don't need them... 2014-09-10 17:04 GMT+02:00 Nathann Cohen <nathann.co...@gmail.com>: > Hello ! > > > and the > > combinatorial object Permutation which should stay 1-based. > > I disagree. > > > And yes Nathan, everyone agrees there are some lack of consistency and > the > > one you mention about bruhat_inversions and inversions is definitely one. > > It is not what I say. What I say is that 1-based permutations are so > uncompatible with Python's standard that we will never be at peace until we > have 0-based permutations instead. And I take this function as evidence. > > > But still, the solution is not to remove 1-based permutation. Maybe I > could > > be more clear, if 1-based permutations were removed, I would have to use > an > > old version of Sage so that I can properly work, or fork it, or > re-introduce > > them. I NEED THEM FOR MY RESEARCH, can you understand that? And I'm > > definitely not the only one. > > It makes me weep when I think of all those mathematicians who stopped > using computers because arrays are 0-indexed. > > Sorry, but I call that bluff. > > 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. > -- 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.
