On 2013-03-22, Nathann Cohen <nathann.co...@gmail.com> wrote: > --bcaec52e66033a8d1704d88510dc > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > >> as I explained, the code you don't like there (cause it does not work on >> insane inputs) would work fine on sane inputs. And the uglier code you >> prefer would break things on insane inputs, too, although at some other >> point, e.g. at the one I outlined above in this thread. > > It does not break things on insane input -- let's decide where we discuss > this, I just answered that on the ticket -- for you are (from Sage's point > of view) perfectly aware of what you are doing when you intersect : > - The orbit of a vertex which you obtained by doing g.action( x, action = > "OnPoints" ) > - The orbit of an edge which you obtained by doing g.action( (x,y), action >= "OnSets") No, this won't really fly. Indeed, we can follow your design, and implement, explictly, action on tuples of tuples. And then, on my example with the Z_3 action, ask for the orbit on ((1,2),(1,2)). And then we are in trouble, cause there is no way to figure out whether (1,2) is a domain element or not!
Dima > > Hence you KNOW that you are intersecting things of different types. We > might as well say that the output of g.action( x, action = "OnPoints" ) is > of type "OrbitOfPoint" and g.action( (x,y), action = "OnSets") of type > "OrbitOfSet". You actually know this information because you filled the > "action" argument yourself. You can infer the type of what is being > returned just from the value of "action". > > Nathann > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
