On Sat, Jan 01, 2011 at 09:13:23PM -0800, Eviatar wrote:
> Yes, I think it should be left open for future implementation. The
> problem is that there are a minimal amount of cases where these can
> be computed in reasonable time. Nonetheless, it is something I may
> add in the future (if no one else does).
Ok. Just a comment which does not neccessarily apply here: even huge
enumerated sets (where full iteration would not be possible) can
afford useful operations, like random generation.
> Thus I think not having it return a word would be more appropriate.
Note that DeBruijnSequences(10,3).an_element() could still return a
word. This second design choice is yours.
> Nicolas, I was a bit unclear on the naming you suggested in the
> review. Could you please clarify it?
Done there!
Ah, a last point. To choose between implementing:
DeBruijnSequences(10,3).an_element()
or
DeBruijnSequences(10,3).first()
You should consider whether the returned sequence will indeed be the
first one, once iteration will be implemented. I.e. it is the smallest
one for the natural iteration order (lexicographic?).
In doubt, use an_element. Anyway, any non empty set should implement
an_element.
Cheers,
Nicolas
--
Nicolas M. Thiéry "Isil" <nthi...@users.sf.net>
http://Nicolas.Thiery.name/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-combinat-devel" group.
To post to this group, send email to sage-combinat-de...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
sage-combinat-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-combinat-devel?hl=en.
