> > In the process of refactoring / categorifying the poset code, I am > creating a category for posets which are lattices. What should be the > name for this category? Lattices() would be natural, but might get > into conflict with other kind of lattices. Should we use > LatticePosets() instead? >
My vote would be for LatticePosets(). I have another little conflict in that the name Posets is, since > recently, used for the library of posets: > > sage: Posets.ChainPoset(3) > Finite lattice containing 3 elements > > very much like graphs and digraphs for graphs. Note that one can also > use: > > sage: posets.ChainPoset(3) > Finite lattice containing 3 elements > > is more consistent in the casing. > > Is this a direction we want to push forward? Namely that a category > As() would also serve as a library of objects in A, available under > the form As.MyExample() ? If yes, should the library of lattices be in > Posets, or in Lattices, or in both? I would agree with Rob, that we should keep the category separate from the collection of objects. In this case I think it would be fine to have either posets.ChainPoset(3) or lattice_posets.ChainPoset(3). David -- 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 this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
