Sorry: "Should we do this?" should be "Should I do this?"
Martin Am Samstag, 20. April 2019 06:31:20 UTC+2 schrieb Martin R: > > In my opinion, `Set` should not be used in library code. It is slow, > unnecessary, and can hide subtle bugs when the underlying object is not > hashable. (https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/23324) > > For the concrete issue at hand, the use of `Set` could be easily removed > in all methods except `SetPartition.base_set` and > `SetPartitions_set.base_set`, because in these two cases calling code might > expect a `Set`. > > Should we do this? > > I should add that this (probably) doesn't solve the underlying issue, and > moreover may affect a lot of doctests, because it might change the ordering > of the parts returned in _repr_. > > Martin > > > Am Samstag, 20. April 2019 04:14:53 UTC+2 schrieb Nils Bruin: >> >> On Friday, April 19, 2019 at 5:25:13 PM UTC-7, John H Palmieri wrote: >>> >>> What does >>> >>> sage: C >>> Set partitions of {'a', 'c', 'b'} >>> >>> >>> reveal? Is it helpful, or can it be omitted? >>> >>> Adding to that: perhaps it reveals something for the documentation >> reader. But in that case the output doesn't need to be tested. The test >> comes later by showing that further methods on C have the desired effect. >> In that case, >> >> sage: C # random print order >> Set partitions of {'a', 'c', 'b'} >> sage: C.cardinality() >> 5 >> >> does the trick AND we keep the output displayed for documentation >> purposes. >> >> -- 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.
