On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 01:38:54PM -0500, David Joyner wrote:
> > Seriously speaking: do you feel like reviewing my patch, once the
> > votes/discussions will be other?
>
> Yes, I'd be happy to.
Thanks! Let's wait one more day for possible feedback, and then it's
good to go. I let you see with Jav
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 5:00 AM, Nicolas M. Thiery
wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 12:32:48PM -0500, David Joyner wrote:
>> Just generally speaking, I appreciate very much any "cleaning up"
>> of this category of Sage objects. To me, it makes things more
>> natural and hopefully makes it easier t
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 12:32:48PM -0500, David Joyner wrote:
> Just generally speaking, I appreciate very much any "cleaning up"
> of this category of Sage objects. To me, it makes things more
> natural and hopefully makes it easier to add functionality in an
> organized way in the future.
Mrr, i
Hi Robert,
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 09:36:18AM -0800, Robert Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 9:12 AM, Nicolas M. Thiery
> wrote:
> > Rationale:
> >
> > (a) For the option name: that might be just me, but I find
> >``generators`` far more natural than ``connecting_set``.
> >
Hi there,
I'm not sure my vote should have a big weight when Nicolas is asking a
question ;-) We already spend so many hours discussing design that we usually
agree... Anyway:
> Recommended use:
>
> sage: G.cayley_graph(generators = [a,b,c])
>
> Where [a,b,c] can be rep
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 9:12 AM, Nicolas M. Thiery
wrote:
> Rationale:
>
> (a) For the option name: that might be just me, but I find
>``generators`` far more natural than ``connecting_set``.
>This specifies an alternative set of generators for (a subgroup
>of) G.
If it's just the nam
Just generally speaking, I appreciate very much any "cleaning up"
of this category of Sage objects. To me, it makes things more
natural and hopefully makes it easier to add functionality in an
organized way in the future.
I haven't used Cayley graphs much and so don't have a specific comment
on yo
Hi Robert!
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 03:24:07PM -0800, Robert Miller wrote:
> > * Merges cayley_graph with that for FiniteSemigroups. In the
> > merging, connecting_set was deprecated to generators. Also
> > providing a single element by itself as connecting set is no
> > m
> * Merges cayley_graph with that for FiniteSemigroups. In the
> merging, connecting_set was deprecated to generators. Also
> providing a single element by itself as connecting set is no
> more supported.
Why is connecting_set being deprecated? Why is a connecting set of
size 1 n
Hello,
Let me advertise a patch on #8044 which introduces categories in the
group code and uses it to do some cleanup. There are some minor design
questions which I thought should be brought up here. This is a
followup to #7921, and I'd love to see it in 4.3.2.
Thanks in advance for feedb
10 matches
Mail list logo
