New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
New user interface for orthogonal arrays and a .explain_construction method #17034
Comments
Branch: u/ncohen/17034 |
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
|
Commit: |
comment:3
Hey, Cool! I will add a look ASAP. Vincent |
comment:4
Hello, I like much better the interface now! In Why do you still allow Vincent |
comment:5
Yo !
Well, I have a lot of things to write when this will be reviewed. Like the functions to get all n such that there exists an All the stuff that I cannot write when everything is done through the same function.
Oh. Right. That's because I had created a "build_resolvable" function at some point in the interface, and did not add it in the end.
It depends on you. I hate the very principle of backward compatibility, but that's why it is there, because the guys who call When this thing will not be deprecated anymore this will only be internal code and we will be allowed to remove whatever we want whenever we want. Nathann |
comment:6
Replying to @nathanncohen:
I see. Following the deprecation rules, the code will not be deleted before sage 6.5. And at that time we might have forget about this! What do you think about an extra deprecation there? Vincent |
comment:7
Yo !
I do not know what you call "extra deprecation" but I added a note near another note about that (see commit). Nathann |
comment:9
Hi, I pushed a commit at
I moved the examples from the function I also renamed Beyond my modifications:
Vincent |
comment:10
Personal pet peeve: don't use Also, there is this funny comment
|
comment:11
Replying to @jdemeyer:
This funny comment is removed in my commit! |
comment:12
Hello !
Oh, True.
Thanks
I prefered mine. Those are not the 'main functions', they are the ones exposed to the user. The 'main function' is
As we are only talking of english here, I do not agree. "Build" is an order given to Sage. As in "Build me that orthogonal array". While for 'exists' comes from "An OA(k,n) exists". In particular, you can't order something to exist. But perhaps it already exists
Well, I did that to avoid creating a new file for absolutely nothing. Otherwise it means newfile+doc module+entry in the reference manual+import the functions+import the module. Here we have a class defined with 10 lines, I found that better.
Oh, sorry. I will fix that in my next commit. You have no idea how many 'drafts' of this patch I wrote before deciding that it was the right way. Nathann |
comment:15
Hello, Does the function Vincent |
comment:16
For the previous remark, see the commit at What about
Vincent |
comment:17
Yo !
I really don't care about any of those points. Do it if you like, or let it stay like that. This being said, I plan on adding new functions to "list all 'k' such that there exists an
Why is it a problem if they call each other ? Nathann |
comment:24
Well, technically that's an 'assert' then. We added that when we noticed that some of our code was calling this function with negative values, while we KNEW that it had to be Nathann New commits:
|
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1 and set ticket back to needs_review. This was a forced push. New commits:
|
comment:27
Replying to @nathanncohen:
The usage of |
Changed branch from public/17034 to |
comment:29
|
Changed commit from |
Commit: |
comment:30
Sorry about that. I had forgotten that the graph code called combinatorial designs. Nathann New commits:
|
Changed branch from |
Changed branch from public/17034 to |
Changed commit from |
comment:33
In #22796, I'm removing some deprecation introduced by this ticket. This ticket added this comment:
but the argument In any case, the handling of |
With this branch the users do not have access to the "designs.orthogonal_array" function which returns int/bool/OA(/string) values. It is deprecated, and replaced with "designs.orthogonal_arrays.*" function that do the same.
Instead of having 3 times the same functions for MOLS and TD, I chosed to remove the arguments in those other constructors, redirecting the users toward the OA functions. I believe that it is better in the long run, as copy/pasting everything really seems pointless.
Additionally, this branch adds a NICE feature:
CC: @videlec
Component: combinatorial designs
Author: Nathann Cohen
Branch:
b9516b1
Reviewer: Vincent Delecroix
Issue created by migration from https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/17034
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: