Closed nthiery closed 9 years ago
what about the pyflakes warning ? could you take care of that please ?
Changed work issues from pyflakes warning to none
At last, got a green report from the bot. Florent, do you think that this is ready ?
Reviewer: Frédéric Chapoton
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
87a475c | Merge branch 'public/ticket/10194' of ssh://trac.sagemath.org:22/sage into 10194 |
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
641c28a | trac #10194 minor doc changes |
@hivert : What is the meaning of the sentences
Put a nice warning _single_pair
and
Comment that and put link to documentation caveat....
in the example file ?
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
20f17b3 | Merge branch 'public/ticket/10194' of trac.sagemath.org:sage into 6.4.b6 |
@hivert : PING, cf comment 53
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
52550e0 | Merge branch 'develop' into t/10194/public/ticket/10194 |
9 failing doctests, see patchbot report
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
ab1507c | Re-reading set factories |
Replying to @fchapoton:
9 failing doctests, see patchbot report
Hi Frederic,
I should have fixed most of the problems (including comment 53). I still need a last pass of re-reading before putting it as needs review.
Florent
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
586248e | Various cleanup in the documentation |
This should be ready for review
Florent
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
763f93c | Merge tag '6.7' into t/10194/factories_policy |
Was there any need for a merge ? By the way, I usually do the merge in the other direction. This gives much smaller commits, as you can see in the commit list.
Replying to @fchapoton:
Was there any need for a merge ? By the way, I usually do the merge in the other direction. This gives much smaller commits, as you can see in the commit list.
No there wasn't, but my goal is to update trees to use factories and ultimately to do computation in operads. As you merged 6.7 in operads I also merged this one to avoid going back and forth.
There is not diff before and after the merge so that you can review on the unmerged version.
ok, let this get in. There are several combinatorial tickets on top of it.
Description changed:
---
+++
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-At Sage days 30, a long brainstorm seems to have finalized the design. Here is a exerpt from the documentation:
+At Sage days 30, a long brainstorm seems to have finalized the design. Here is a excerpt from the documentation:
A *set factory* `F` is device, whose goal is to construct parent `P`
which models subsets of a big set `S`. Typically, the `P` s are constructed
Description changed:
---
+++
@@ -26,4 +26,3 @@
Florent
-**Apply :** [trac_10194-factories_policy-fh.patch](https://github.com/sagemath/sage-prod/files/10651310/trac_10194-factories_policy-fh.patch.gz)
Changed branch from public/ticket/10194 to 763f93c
At Sage days 30, a long brainstorm seems to have finalized the design. Here is a excerpt from the documentation:
A set factory
F
is device, whose goal is to construct parentP
which models subsets of a big setS
. Typically, theP
s are constructed within families obtained by putting a bunch of constraintscons
on the elements of the setS
. In such a hierarchy of subsets, one needs to have a fine and easy control on the elements construction. That is, one often needs thatP
constructs elements in a subclass of its usual class for element. On the contrary, one also often needsP
to be a facade parent, meaning thatP
construct element whose actual parent is notP
itself.The role of a set factory is twofold:
manage a database of constructors for the different parents
P = F(cons)
depending on the various kinds of constraintscons
. Note: currently there is no real support for that. We are gathering use case before fixing the interface.ensure that the elements
e = P(...)
created by the different parents follows a consistent policy concerning their class and parent.The patch implement this idea while trying to leave as much as possible space for further improvement. In particular, I tried to specify the few possible things about constraints. I'm even not completely sure about
add_constraints
. Please comment and review.Florent
CC: @sagetrac-sage-combinat @hivert
Component: combinatorics
Keywords: factories, days30, Cernay2012, days57
Author: Florent Hivert
Branch/Commit:
763f93c
Reviewer: Frédéric Chapoton
Issue created by migration from https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10194