On 2014-09-07, Travis Scrimshaw <tsc...@ucdavis.edu> wrote: > > >> I never said that, or at least I didn't mean anything like this. >> I meant to say that it is insane to have a special >> kind of imput for cyclic permutations: >> >> Permutation((1,2,3)) >> >> while not having anything like >> >> Permutation((1,2,3)(4,5)) >> >> In fact, you'd think ',' will do the trick, and yes, you can do >> >> Permutation((1,2,3),(4,5)) >> >> BUT: >> sage: Permutation((1,2,3),(4,5)) >> [2, 3, 1] >> >> this is the design decision I'd call, pardom my French, "f*ck typing, f*ck >> the user..." >> > > I believe in well-documented functions/methods and examples, and the > first thing I teach people about functions/methods is to look at the > documentation (which tells you that giving it two arguments is not right). > There are many functions/methods/classes where I look at the doc when I get > unexpected behavior or errors.
documenting an awful interface does not make it less awful. > As for this behavior, it's a shorthand, and I think it's acceptable. Yet > from this discussion, it could use more documentation. A way out is either implement Permutation((1,2,3),(4,5)) (and other similar inputs) to return what it should, i.e. [2, 3, 1, 5, 4] or remove Permutation((1,2,3)) If there are no objections to the former, I can probably provide an implementaion... Dima -- 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.
