Hey Nathann, The main reason why I stalled on the permutations input was mainly trying to figure out how to handle generalized permutations (a.k.a. bi-words, two-line arrays, in bijection with N-matrices) so the RS(K) examples will still work (and as a 2fer, getting the full RSK working), and I wanted to talk in particular with Nicolas and Florent about how to structure/refactor everything. The current version of trac_8392-check_permutation-ts.patch in the sage-combinat queue currently checks to make sure input is 1 to n, however I can base that patch on the #13742 patch. I can also get back immediately into finishing the above patch if you want too.
Best, Travis On Thursday, November 22, 2012 8:38:42 AM UTC-8, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote: > > Hi Nathann, > > On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 06:13:52AM -0800, Nathann Cohen wrote: > > Vincent, Travis, Dima : there's a new patch at #13742. It does > nothing. It > > just checks input. It adds tests and warnings. And I lost half a day > and a > > lunch because of very bad work. > > Feel free to edit the patch as you like. I just want to be sure I can > > trust permutations when I build one. Honestly, for me the only good > > solution is to remove Permutations from Sage and let everything > break. > > Then say "if you need it, write it". 5 years of waiting for it to > happen > > have not done much good. > > Mike Hansen worked like hell back in 2007 to port 30k lines of code > from MuPAD-Combinat to Sage. Of course that was not perfect by far: > you can't achieve such a massive goal and get a clean result in such a > short time, especially when the proper infrastructure is not yet > there. And yes, it often takes more time to refactor code than to > write it from scratch once you have the proper infrastructure. But at > least we had something we could work and do our daily research work > with. Altogether Mike' work was a huge asset in the migration of our > community from MuPAD to Sage, which in the end has already led to > 200k+ of code, at lot of which being quite clean. > > Yes Permutations, as they are, are quite crappy; we claimed that from > day one. I totally understand your frustration from having been myself > hit hard so often by so many other crappy spots from the original Sage > code. Still, I am grateful to the people who rushed so hard to write > *something* and make Sage happen. > > Granted, the refactoring of all this code is frustratingly long. But > there are a *lot* of efforts going on and things are progressing, one > step at a time (thanks everybody for that!). This will eventually get > done. > > And we should *not* remove that code in the meantime, because, as > crappy as it is, it still serves its purpose in waiting for something > better. If you want to add big fat warnings and some sanity checks, > sure go ahead. But please be kind and unobtrusive to those who wrote > it and those who are working hard to improve it. > > Cheers, > Nicolas > -- > Nicolas M. Thi�ry "Isil" <nth...@users.sf.net <javascript:>> > http://Nicolas.Thiery.name/ > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel?hl=en.
