Hi Andrew!
> ... about partition being or not a subclass of partition tuple
The situation is pretty similar to skew partitions: a partition can be
interpreted as a degenerate case of skew-partition as well as a
degenerate case of tuple of partitions. The question is whether we
want the trivial bijection between partitions and 1-uples of
partitions to be implicit or explicit.
I would not want the concrete class Partition to be a subclass of
PartitionTuple because the data structure for a partition is not the
same as for a tuple of partitions (unless we accept a level of
indirection for partitions which seems a waste to me). More
importantly, I don't expect the same result for p[0] when p is a
partition or a tuple of partitions.
On the other hand it could possibly make sense to have a common
abstract super class for Partition and PartitionTuple. If I was to
decide myself, I would listen to the code and see what, if anything,
goes in this potential abstract class.
Cheers,
Nicolas
--
Nicolas M. Thiéry "Isil"
http://Nicolas.Thiery.name/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-combinat-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to sage-combinat-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sage-combinat-devel@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-combinat-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
