Yes, I agree the hash should be different as the points are not exactly the same interval. However, in trying to explore the interval comparison this also may have exposed a bug in the equality check for projective points. Since the CIF is returning False for == and != the __eq__ check for projective points is incorrectly returning True. I'll refactor that to be a positive check instead of the current negative check.
With that in mind, it seems that DiGraph is fine as those points are differing in both hash and ==, correct? On Monday, December 1, 2014 1:40:07 PM UTC-5, Nathann Cohen wrote: > > Yo ! > > > Interval fields apparently hide this (intervals are "equal" if they have > > non-empty intersection?), but of course hash cannot respect this, > because > > this notion of "equality" isn't transitive. The bug is that CIF elements > are > > hashable at all. > > I see. Graphs would not like non-transitive equality either :-P > > 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.
