On Jun 3, 2:07 pm, "Nicolas M. Thiery"
wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 09:58:28AM -0700, Volker Braun wrote:
> > This is perhaps related, but I found that using one-line permutation
> > notation is rather dangerous. It would be nice to have some more input
> > checking
Hi!
On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 09:58:28AM -0700, Volker Braun wrote:
>This is perhaps related, but I found that using one-line permutation
>notation is rather dangerous. It would be nice to have some more input
>checking here, perhaps with an optional check=True argument to switch
This is perhaps related, but I found that using one-line permutation
notation is rather dangerous. It would be nice to have some more input
checking here, perhaps with an optional check=True argument to switch it off
if you have to:
sage: Permutation([3,2]) # invalid one-line notation
[3, 2]
s
On Jun 2, 12:19 pm, kcrisman wrote:
> This is for the combinat folks:
>
> sage: from sage.combinat.permutation import to_standard as pts
> sage: a = [1,2,4]
> sage: pts(a)
> [1, 2, 3]
> sage: a
> [5, 5, 5]
>
> Is this desired behavior? It seems quite dangerous. I think I've
> found a workaroun
