Skip to content
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

Documentation on monomial orderings #4168

Open
thofma opened this issue Oct 1, 2024 · 1 comment
Open

Documentation on monomial orderings #4168

thofma opened this issue Oct 1, 2024 · 1 comment
Labels
documentation Improvements or additions to documentation triage

Comments

@thofma
Copy link
Collaborator

thofma commented Oct 1, 2024

At some point in time, Dan introduced the following important piece of information in the documentation (important for people who not want to write slow code):

!!! note
    As the above functions take an arbitrary ordering, they are much slower than
    the versions from AbstractAlgebra, which use the natural ordering in the
    parent polynomial ring: `default_ordering(parent(f))` is not necessarily
    this natural ordering. If this ordering of the parent is desired, or if the
    ordering is not important, it is recommended to use the following.
    - `AbstractAlgebra.coefficients(f)`
    - `zip(AbstractAlgebra.coefficients(f), AbstractAlgebra.exponent_vectors(f))`
    - `AbstractAlgebra.exponent_vectors(f)`
    - `AbstractAlgebra.monomials(f)`
    - `AbstractAlgebra.terms(f)`
    - `AbstractAlgebra.leading_coefficient(f)`
    - `AbstractAlgebra.leading_exponent_vector(f)`
    - `AbstractAlgebra.leading_monomial(f)`
    - `AbstractAlgebra.leading_term(f)`

It appears that this was removed in #1760. @wdecker @ederc not sure if this was on purpose? If so, do you mind if we reintroduce it? Maybe in the developer documentation part?

@thofma thofma added bug Something isn't working and removed bug Something isn't working labels Oct 1, 2024
@wdecker
Copy link
Collaborator

wdecker commented Oct 1, 2024

It appears that this was removed in #1760. @wdecker @ederc not sure if this was on purpose? If so, do you mind if we reintroduce it? Maybe in the developer documentation part?

I removed this since I found it very confusing for the average user, in particular since the wording is not accurate enough. On the other hand, it might indeed be important for developers. But not every developer will read the developer documentation part if he is just interested in monomial orderings. So how about adding something like !!! note for developers to !!! note, !!! warning, and friends so that informaton like the one considered here can be entered at the right spot.

@fingolfin fingolfin added documentation Improvements or additions to documentation triage labels Oct 22, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
documentation Improvements or additions to documentation triage
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants