"""
E.g. when a
borderline feature is meaningful in the context of Sage, is useful
for a sister project, but does not yet have a direct use case
within Sage ...
"""
Correct me if I am wrong, off the top of my head:
Assuming "the findstat people" start adding information about which maps
are bijective, can't one automatically create new tests, testing two
methods at once?
Assuming "the findstat people" start adding information about the ranges of
maps, can't one automatically create new tests, testing that the output of
a method is what it should be? (e.g. no [5,4,2] that is supposed to be a
Partition but is in fact a list).
Paul
Paul-Olivier Dehaye
SNF Assistant Professor of Mathematics
University of Zurich
skype: lokami_lokami (preferred)
phone: +41 76 407 57 96
chat: pauloliv...@gmail.com
twitter: podehaye
freenode irc: pdehaye
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 11:21 PM, Nicolas M. Thiery <
nicolas.thi...@u-psud.fr> wrote:
> > On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 10:02 PM, Nathann Cohen <nathann.co...@gmail.com
> >
> > > I can hear your frustration ... In similar situations, it helped me
> to
> > > keep in mind that loud people are not always representative. Of
> course
> > > the difficulty is to fetch the opinion from the others.
> >
> > Ahahahahahahah. Well, only including in Sage code that is useful to "a
> > Sage user" or "other developpers" does not seem that far-fetched. I
> > still do not see what the problem is with that.
> > Err.... Well, assuming the obvious : that I am the "loud people" you
> > mention.
>
> Sorry, I should have clearly separated the two topics. My point was
> about (1) below.
>
> (1) When a Sage developer believes in his heart that something is the
> right thing to do for Sage, (s)he should not get discouraged by
> loud opposition without first reaching for the opinions of a
> larger pool of developers.
>
> Btw: there are more than one loud people :-) Actually I also put
> myself in there, as the graded algebra with basis discussion from
> the other month shows ...
>
> (2) About ``only including in Sage code that is useful to "a Sage
> user" or "other developpers"''. In principle, yes, sure, I
> agree. Still there can be legitimate complementary point of views
> and discussions about where to put the limit. E.g. when a
> borderline feature is meaningful in the context of Sage, is useful
> for a sister project, but does not yet have a direct use case
> within Sage ...
>
> Cheers,
> Nicolas
> --
> Nicolas M. Thiéry "Isil" <nthi...@users.sf.net>
> http://Nicolas.Thiery.name/
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-combinat-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-combinat-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to sage-combinat-de...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-combinat-devel.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
--
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/d/optout.
