> > Combinatorics is definitely the strongest part of Sage. > > > Old school combinatorics perhaps. But see > http://unsexy-science.blogspot.de/2015/10/survey-sage-and-enumerative.html >
We also have strong support for algebraic combinatorics with symmetric functions and its well-known/studied generalizations. There is also a lot of code by Jean-Baptiste for other combinatorial Hopf algebras. We also have good support for combinatorial representation theory and some support for combinatorial geometry. Unfortunately I don't know enough about graph theory to say how Sage compares with any other CAS, but I would think we compare quite well. Nathann? For my part, I would really love it if those who know the code > involved could finally get rid of the 9999 broken functions that > everybody inherit from element: > N, base_extend, base_ring, db, dump, dumps, is_zero, n, > numerical_approx, rename, reset, subs, substitute. +1 Most of those functions come from old-Sage, where they are all implemented in the common base class Element. The rename function should remain there because it allows us to call a SageObject whatever we want, often to shorten them for demos (quite useful). Many of them should be moved to the appropriate category or inserting a new ABC into the hierarchy. It just takes some time and effort to do this kind of maintenance to make sure nothing will break. Best, Travis -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
