> If that is the case then why are you writing a rambling page-long post about > speed penalty of decorators?
>_< Volker, did you fail to notice that an email can make several points at once ? I mean, how come you reduced my 1000 lines to one sentence saying something that I never claimed ? Decorators have their own interests. I played with "@parallel" yesterday. But I am pretty sure that my point was mostly that decorators are not adapted in this situation, and that it can apparently be rewritten more efficiently. That was for the "speed" part. For the "development model" part, I claimed that it was not very sound to require that any map that is useful in find_stat should become a method in Sage. I'm pretty sure that I mentionned that too. > How about we ask somebody who actually works on combinatorics whether this > is a useful method. If not, remove it. Well, I do work on graphs from time to time. But even if my opinion was of any importance, or if I reached on your scale the height of somebody who actually works on combinatorics, it would not be sufficient to say that a function should be removed. I can't prove that something is useless, what I can do is say that it has been added for wrong reasons. Hmmmm..... 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
