That's exactly what I'm saying. With this change, that may not occur if someone had overwritten interval() with some slightly different behavior in a subclass and was calling closed_interval(), they would experience an unexpected change (or, perhaps more likely, a major slow-down). It would be calling the interval() of FinitePoset rather than the subclass.
Best, Travis On Tuesday, November 11, 2014 10:33:26 PM UTC-8, Nathann Cohen wrote: > > This would check against code within Sage, but anyone who has private code >>> could experience unexpected changes (granted it's unlikely, but it is >>> visible by the user that is not fixing a bug). I'd just leave this alone as >>> it doesn't hurt anyone. >> >> > Travis, don't you think that everybody, on the contrary, EXPECTS that > interval return the same thing as closed_interval in subclasses, exactly as > it does for the main one ? > > 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/d/optout.
