On Jun 25, 3:34 pm, Andrey Novoseltsev wrote:
> So I'd prefer to keep the existing name
> "linear_subspace" for the corresponding function.
For once, I totally agree! :-)
Volker
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an emai
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 2:48 AM, Volker Braun wrote:
> Ewald's book "Combinatorial convexity and algebraic geometry" defines
> the cospan of a (not strictly convex) cone to be its maximal linear
> subspace. I think we should stick to "dual" when it comes to lattices
> since this in the standard no
Ewald's book "Combinatorial convexity and algebraic geometry" defines
the cospan of a (not strictly convex) cone to be its maximal linear
subspace. I think we should stick to "dual" when it comes to lattices
since this in the standard nomenclature in toric geometry.
Volker
On Jun 25, 12:58 am, A
On Jun 24, 3:57 am, Volker Braun wrote:
> Good point! Here is a snapshot of the current documentation:
>
> http://www.stp.dias.ie/~vbraun/Sage/html/en/reference/sage/geometry/c...
>
> Right now, I'm essentially using abbreviations N="spanned_lattice" and
> M="spanned_lattice_dual" in the method
On 06/23/10 11:39 PM, Volker Braun wrote:
The difference between the toric lattice computations and the root
lattices is that the (co)weight lattices are one of the main features
of interest to the end user, while the various toric lattices are
mostly of internal use for computing something else.
Good point! Here is a snapshot of the current documentation:
http://www.stp.dias.ie/~vbraun/Sage/html/en/reference/sage/geometry/cone.html#sage.geometry.cone.ConvexRationalPolyhedralCone.M_quotient_basis
Right now, I'm essentially using abbreviations N="spanned_lattice" and
M="spanned_lattice_dua
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 6:29 PM, Kwankyu Lee wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I might be a beginner of the toric geometry package in Sage.
>
> I prefer long and explicit names for method names. However, I also
> prefer to see those methods have docstrings that are written using the
> traditional N and M notations
I would vote for more descriptive names in general, while making some
effort to control their length.
-Marshall
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit
On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 18:29:02 -0700 (PDT), Kwankyu Lee
wrote:
> I also want to mention that N reminds me of the Mathematica N()
> command to get a numerical value.
Not just Mathematica. In Sage:
sage: N?
Base Class:
String Form:
Namespace: Interactive
File:
/home/ghitza
Hi,
I might be a beginner of the toric geometry package in Sage.
I prefer long and explicit names for method names. However, I also
prefer to see those methods have docstrings that are written using the
traditional N and M notations.
I also want to mention that N reminds me of the Mathematica N(
The difference between the toric lattice computations and the root
lattices is that the (co)weight lattices are one of the main features
of interest to the end user, while the various toric lattices are
mostly of internal use for computing something else.
I don't have a strong opinion against long
> My general two cents: explicit (=long) is better than implicit
> (=short). However it should be easy for the user to define its own short
> names.
My proposal in the ticket was to add a function that will create short
synonims for all such methods, if a user so desires. Of course, if
this is don
12 matches
Mail list logo
