Hi, please don't make a distinction based on the n being less than 15! That would make a really bad pitfall.
Best regards, Darij On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 6:28 AM, Viviane Pons <p...@univ-mlv.fr> wrote: > > > 2015-03-18 12:40 GMT+01:00 Mike Zabrocki <mike.zabro...@gmail.com>: > >> That would make sense. My preference is that (at least for values less >> than 15) the default is that the output is sorted and this can be >> controlled by the optional parameter. >> >> I think about how many times that I test symmetric function identities on >> partitions and realize that patterns that indicate a relation to dominance >> order will be a lot less clear if the order is not something natural. I >> wouldn't want the interface to be too complicated, but the more I think >> about it the more I realize that my personal use of partitions is very >> dependent on this order. >> > > I would tend to agree with you. The order wasn't documented but I'm pretty > sure many people writing some personal code using partitions still rely on > the order somehow. I feel a good choice would be to give the "nice" order > by default and some parameter to obtain the optimized one. > > > >> >> On Wednesday, 18 March 2015 04:20:15 UTC-4, Samuel Lelievre wrote: >>> >>> Nathann Cohen wrote: >>>> >>>> Hello, >>>> >>>> > I think that Partitions should be output in either lex (or possibly >>>> reverse >>>> > lex) since this order is compatible with dominance order. >>>> >>>> I only want to bring to your attention that deciding in which order >>>> the partitions should be returned is not free in terms of >>>> computational time. >>>> >>>> The current implementation returns them in lex order, but returns >>>> *many* wrong answers too (see #17548). >>>> >>>> In order to fix that, Jeroen is re-implementing this feature through a >>>> routine that enumerates the integer points of a polytope (see #17920), >>>> probably without any control over the order in which they are >>>> returned. >>>> >>>> Thus, in order for Partition/Composition to return them in a specific >>>> order we must list them *all* before returning the first of them. This >>>> can really mean hours (or no results at all) instead of seconds on big >>>> instances. >>>> >>> >>> So would it make sense to have an optional parameter sorted=None, >>> which one could set to 'lex' or 'revlex' to get them in a desired order. >>> The documentation could warn about the issues you just raised. >>> >> -- >> 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-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.
