Hi Nicolas,
I'm assuming the subject line got your attention. :) I've been working
on a basic implementation of quasisymmetric functions (monomial and
fundamental basis only, no Hopf operations) and I already have something
that seems to work. Without using sage-combinat. Hooray! Three cheers
Daniel Bump wrote:
Done and reposted.
I thought the docstring needed a bit of revision to reflect the
changes, so I added a patch to the queue called trac_7729_doc.patch.
I posted trac_7729_iwahori-hecke-algebra.2.patch to the server.
If you qfold trac_7729_doc.patch you will get identical to
On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 12:06:12PM -0800, Anne Schilling wrote:
> >Now why did I deem CoxeterGroups "general purpose" but not the
> >categories used, e.g., for NonCommutativeSymmetricFunctions? Mostly
> >because there are Coxeter groups in different spots in Sage: for
> >example the symmetric grou
sage.algebras.iwahori (as it currently is)
sage.combinat.iwahori (similar to sage.combinat.sf / ...)
sage.combinat.root_system.iwahori (similar to sage.combinat.weyl_group)
I debated where to put it. All three places seem logical.
Anyone else feedback?
I would say either
sage.algebras.iwahor
On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 05:56:07PM +0100, Sébastien Labbé wrote:
> Dear Nicolas,
>
> A recent changes created a conflict in the sage-combinat tree. It is
> either me or you...but I think it is you!
Oops! Fixed!
>
> Sincèrement,
>
> Sébastien
>
> sla...@pol:~/sage-4.3/devel/sage-combinat/sage/
> Done and reposted.
I thought the docstring needed a bit of revision to reflect the
changes, so I added a patch to the queue called trac_7729_doc.patch.
I posted trac_7729_iwahori-hecke-algebra.2.patch to the server.
If you qfold trac_7729_doc.patch you will get identical to this
patch. I did n
On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 08:36:38AM -0800, Daniel Bump wrote:
> > For the record: the category/free_module refactorization allowed to
> > get rid of about 200 lines out of 700. Those were mostly lines of
> > code; I kept all the doctests. Now that you have seen how this works,
> > how would you feel
Dear Nicolas,
A recent changes created a conflict in the sage-combinat tree. It is
either me or you...but I think it is you!
Sincèrement,
Sébastien
sla...@pol:~/sage-4.3/devel/sage-combinat/sage/combinat/words$ hg qpop -a
la pile de patchs est maintenant vide
sla...@pol:~/sage-4.3/devel/sage-co
> For the record: the category/free_module refactorization allowed to
> get rid of about 200 lines out of 700. Those were mostly lines of
> code; I kept all the doctests. Now that you have seen how this works,
> how would you feel doing something similar for WeylCharacters?
I agree that it should
Dear Dan,
On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 07:11:09AM -0800, bump wrote:
> > Ok, glad to see that we agree. Actually, we want to accept a Coxeter
> > group I think. I'll do that today.
>
> OK.
Done an reposted.
For the record: the category/free_module refactorization allowed to
get rid of about
> Ok, glad to see that we agree. Actually, we want to accept a Coxeter
> group I think. I'll do that today.
OK.
> What about the second question:
>
> - Should we use q in QQ['q'] as default parameter for q_1?
I don't know whether it would be worth it. It doesn't seem too much
work for the u
11 matches
Mail list logo
