Hi Vivianne, 2014-12-03 15:07 UTC+01:00, Viviane Pons <vivianep...@gmail.com>: > My comment on this: > > * Findstat does not need such methods to be in sage (anymore), as we > actually define our own maps outside of Sage (for the good of FindStat and > for the bad of Sage in my opinion) so at least, no one can be accused of > being partial > > * If a method exists somewhere and has been there for some time, I don't > see why it should be removed: I don't see any negative impact of the method > being there. The idea of building some kind of global semantic map of > relations between combinatorial objects has not been completely dropped out > and I still think it would be a good thing to have. In this context, such a > method would make sense.
These are two different things: - having methods - having maps between combinatorial objects I do not see why one should depend on the other. And there is an argument for not having too much method on a given class: readability. Vincent PS: Not speaking about Findstat, you know that I worked a bit to propose something for the database of combinatorial maps (see #16408). I receive exactly 0 answer since then... and it was 6 months ago. -- 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.
