Jori Mäntysalo writes: > At least for now we don't have parameter like > trust_me_i_know_what_i_am_doing=True for posets or lattices.
Such a parameter would make lots of sense, I think. > This can be > seen for example with C500=Posets.ChainPoset(500), and after that even > C500.join(100,200) will take few seconds for first time. That means that > ChainPoset() makes a digraph, that is tested to be a poset, then tested to > be a lattice by creating join- an meet-matrix and then those matrices are > thrown away. Wow, such terrible performance on trivial examples is surprising to me! Would it make sense to make special sub-classes of FiniteLatticePoset for the special cases, where join, meet, etc. is overwritten? It depends, of course, on what people usually do with lattices (I'm not an expert). > (Funnier example is C500.is_lattice() taking few seconds, even if it's > class is lattice.) ??? Why is is_lattice not overwritten by FiniteLatticePoset? > Yes, if the choises are - and will be - a list and a lattice. But maybe > somebody wants to return a poset or a set? A lattice can be trivially converted to a poset or set. So if construction of the lattice object is cheap, with the aforementioned dont-check parameter, then returning a lattice seems better better. Johan -- 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.
