> I just pushed my changes on the Sage-Combinat queue. The code uses
> standard coercion now.
Thanks! At the moment, I can say that after your patch,
the code seems to be about the same speed as before,
which is good.
> I won't touch the thing tomorrow, so feel free to fold all the 7922
> patche
On Mar 21, 11:30 am, "Nicolas M. Thiery"
wrote:
> In particular, one would need good names for the basic poset
> operations:
>
> P.le(a,b) (returns a< b in P)
> P.lequal(a,b) (returns a<=b in P)
Hi Nicolas,
How about "lt" for "<" and "le" for "<="? I think these are more
standard.
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 01:21:36AM +0100, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote:
> I just pushed my changes on the Sage-Combinat queue. The code uses
> standard coercion now. In the process, I have factored out a couple
> functions to the ambient space (from_vector_notation, the coerce_E6
> and friends). It's no
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 10:35:55PM +0100, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 07:37:25AM -0700, Daniel Bump wrote:
> > Well, what you are suggesting is a little tricky. Two
> > rings will be created at the same time, and the
> > multiplication will be implemented by coercing from
> >
> Back to positive review.
Thanks too!
--
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-devel@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
sage-combinat-devel+unsubscr
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 07:37:25AM -0700, Daniel Bump wrote:
> Well, what you are suggesting is a little tricky. Two
> rings will be created at the same time, and the
> multiplication will be implemented by coercing from
> the WeylCharacterRing to the WeightRing, multiplying,
> and coercing back.
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 04:51:12PM -0400, Sébastien Labbé wrote:
> It is done. The patch was having a positive review since some time. I
> put it back to needs review status, but I really want this to get into
> sage-4.7...
Back to positive review. Thanks much!
Nic
> Ah, thanks for the notice. Actually, would you mind updating your
> patch to remove the #long time? That will reduce the trac/patch/review
> overhead. I can reset a positive review as soon as done.
It is done. The patch was having a positive review since some time. I
put it back to needs review
Hi,
Just a quick update on the refactoring and categorifications of
posets. There are a couple issues left, but you might want to play
around with the following (with the sage-combinat patches applied),
and I would love to have feedback on what breaks or not:
As an experimental featur
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 12:49:36PM -0400, Sébastien Labbé wrote:
> > Unless someone expresses a strong counter-feeling by Monday, I'll
> > post a patch to revert that.
>
> Expect some conflicts with #10354 where I remove the `` print "x"; ``
> part (because the warnings do not appear anymore).
>
> I believe that these pickles should simply be removed from the
> pickle jar.
This is done by #10354 :
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/10354
which has a positive review.
Sébastien
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-combinat-devel" gr
> Unless someone expresses a strong counter-feeling by Monday, I'll
> post a patch to revert that.
Expect some conflicts with #10354 where I remove the `` print "x"; ``
part (because the warnings do not appear anymore).
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/10354
I will adapt if your patch g
I have taken a look at the code, and I think I have identified the
bug. I'm not sure this is the most appropriate place to suggest a
modification; if not, I hope someone can forward this to the right
address, or at least tell me where to post it.
Here are some tests showing the issue:
sage: w=Wor
Hi Alessandro,
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 05:48:22PM -0700, Alessandro De Luca wrote:
> I am writing because the conjugate_position method (for finite words)
> is not working the way I expected. I believe that the output for
>
> w.conjugate(-1).conjugate_position(w)
>
> should equal w.lengt
Hi everybody,
I am writing because the conjugate_position method (for finite words)
is not working the way I expected.
I believe that the output for
w.conjugate(-1).conjugate_position(w)
should equal w.length()-1 for all words w on at least two letters.
However, I seem to get no answer, all the
15 matches
Mail list logo
