It also makes it much easier for the user to discover it (in fact, this
time the user was me; it took examining the code for me to find this
functionality in the first place).
This is now http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/19218 and needing review.
Best,
Travis
On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at
On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 07:00:11PM -0700, Anne Schilling wrote:
> I would also say (B). But why is skew_schur needed if the usual
> Schur function already takes a skew partition as an input?
It's a usual pattern: when a constructor/call function takes very
different kinds of input, it can be nice
Hi Travis and Mike,
I would also say (B). But why is skew_schur needed if the usual
Schur function already takes a skew partition as an input?
Best,
Anne
On 9/13/15 7:30 PM, Mike Zabrocki wrote:
> Hi Travis,
>
> I would say that the skew partition input into bases (other than Schur
> function
Hey Mike,
I would say that the skew partition input into bases (other than Schur
> functions, and for Schurs the documentation is insufficient...see sf.html)
> is undocumented and so the output should be suspect (and not what one would
> hope).
>
> For Schur functions, I think the output is wha
Hi Travis,
I would say that the skew partition input into bases (other than Schur
functions, and for Schurs the documentation is insufficient...see sf.html)
is undocumented and so the output should be suspect (and not what one would
hope).
For Schur functions, I think the output is what I woul
