[with patch, positive review] Cleanup of integer compositions

[nthiery]

• Documentation improvements
• Fixes some of  http://wiki.sagemath.org/combinat/Weirdness
• Composition(l) accepts any iterable l, and in particular a tuple
• New functionalities:
  • concatenation (as add and sum)
  • size
  • fatter, finer, fatten (refinement of compositions)
• Uses IntegerListsLex? (fast iteration, ...) instead of not any better specific code Note: this changes the iteration order to inverse lexicographic, and iteration changes the iteration order for set partitions, skew partitions, and skew tableaux.

[ddrake]

I very much want this patch to get in, since I almost opened a ticket for one of the problems that it fixes. (Composition() doesn't take tuples as input.) One thing that needs to change, though, is with the docstring for Composition: right now, it tells the user to do Composition_class?, but that doesn't work since Composition_class is not in the default namespace. I think Composition? should simply display the correct docstring; there's no need to annoy the user by sending him or her bouncing from one docstring to the next.

Another issue is that the AUTHORS block is deleted from the head of the file. This should not be done. In fact, you should add yourself to it as the  developer's guide suggests: something like "Nicolas M. Thiery (2009-05-25): several cleanups, new functions, and improvements (trac #5600)". I like listing ticket numbers because interested developers can go see exactly what you changed.

Tiny grammar/spelling issues:

• At the top of compositions.py, you write "a compositions c of..."; you should use the singular. "A composition c of..."
• line 56: you say a composition is a list of positive integers, but it should be a list of nonnegative integers.

Finally, I am seeing a doctest failure with this patch applied to vanilla 4.0.rc0:

**********************************************************************
File "/var/tmp/sage-4.0.rc0/devel/sage/sage/combinat/ribbon_tableau.py", line 875:
    sage: SemistandardMultiSkewTableaux([sp[0], sp[-1]],[2,2,2]).list()
Expected:
    [[[[1], [2], [3]], [[1, 2, 3]]]]
Got:
    [[[[1, 1, 2]], [[None, None, 3], [None, 3], [2]]], [[[1, 2, 2]], [[None, None, 3], [None, 3], [1]]], [[[1, 1, 2]], [[None, None, 3], [None, 2], [3]]], [[[1, 2, 2]], [[None, None, 3], [None, 1], [3]]], [[[1, 1, 2]], [[None, None, 2], [None, 3], [3]]], [[[1, 2, 2]], [[None, None, 1], [None, 3], [3]]], [[[1, 1, 3]], [[None, None, 3], [None, 2], [2]]], [[[1, 2, 3]], [[None, None, 3], [None, 2], [1]]], [[[1, 2, 3]], [[None, None, 3], [None, 1], [2]]], [[[2, 2, 3]], [[None, None, 3], [None, 1], [1]]], [[[1, 1, 3]], [[None, None, 2], [None, 3], [2]]], [[[1, 2, 3]], [[None, None, 2], [None, 3], [1]]], [[[1, 2, 3]], [[None, None, 1], [None, 3], [2]]], [[[2, 2, 3]], [[None, None, 1], [None, 3], [1]]], [[[1, 1, 3]], [[None, None, 2], [None, 2], [3]]], [[[1, 2, 3]], [[None, None, 2], [None, 1], [3]]], [[[1, 2, 3]], [[None, None, 1], [None, 2], [3]]], [[[2, 2, 3]], [[None, None, 1], [None, 1], [3]]], [[[1, 3, 3]], [[None, None, 2], [None, 2], [1]]], [[[1, 3, 3]], [[None, None, 2], [None, 1], [2]]], [[[1, 3, 3]], [[None, None, 1], [None, 2], [2]]], [[[2, 3, 3]], [[None, None, 2], [None, 1], [1]]], [[[2, 3, 3]], [[None, None, 1], [None, 2], [1]]], [[[2, 3, 3]], [[None, None, 1], [None, 1], [2]]]]
**********************************************************************

[nthiery]

The updated patch fixes the (the failure was actually actually a trivial thing in the doctest; thanks to Jason for spotting this!)

[nthiery]

Apply only this one, yes, this one!

[jbandlow]

Doctests pass, and it looks like Dan's issues have been resolved. Positive review from me.

[mvngu]

reviewer patch

[mvngu]

I'm attaching the reviewer patch trac_5600-reviewer.patch. It fixes a number of typos introduced by trac_5600-compositions_cleanup-nt.patch, and edits some docstrings so they look a bit nicer when one views the corresponding pages in the reference manual. If people are happy with my reviewer patch trac_5600-reviewer.patch, then patches should be merged in this order:

1. trac_5600-compositions_cleanup-nt.patch
2. trac_5600-reviewer.patch

[nthiery]

Replying to mvngu:

I'm attaching the reviewer patch trac_5600-reviewer.patch. It fixes a number of typos introduced by trac_5600-compositions_cleanup-nt.patch, and edits some docstrings so they look a bit nicer when one views the corresponding pages in the reference manual. If people are happy with my reviewer patch trac_5600-reviewer.patch, then patches should be merged in this order: 1. trac_5600-compositions_cleanup-nt.patch 1. trac_5600-reviewer.patch

Thanks much for fixing all those typos! positive review on your reviewer's patch.

[mvngu]

Merged patches in this order:

1. trac_5600-compositions_cleanup-nt.patch
2. trac_5600-reviewer.patch