Adding new combinatorial maps to binary trees

[VivianePons]

We add different combinatorial maps between binary trees and other combinatorial objects (permutations, dyck path, ...) especially to be used into FindStat?.

Apply only:

• trac_14123-binary-trees-maps-rebase-cs.patch​

[VivianePons]

apply trac_14123-binary-trees-maps-vp.patch

[stumpc5]

Hi Viviane,

could you maybe do a little change in the @combinatorial_map names like in

"recursive map 'L 1 R 0' (Tamari)" -> "recursive map L1R0 (Tamari)"

to make it look a little less scary?

[chrisjamesberg]

Needs to be rebased with finished #8703.

[stumpc5]

If no one else has objections, I'd give it a positive review.

[VivianePons]

The only problem I see is that the names of the map here are the old names, not the new ones we use in Findstat. Chris changed the names on the Findstas patch but not on this one and I didn't take the time to do it either...

[stumpc5]

Isn't this (part of) the content of #14302?

[stumpc5]

Hi Viviane --

I updated the patch with tons of minor changes (unfortunately, I didn't do it in a separate file to actually show the diff, sorry):

• I removed tons of trailing white spaces, and empty lines
• it's worth looking at the docbuild outcome to see what code is not yet rendering as desired.
  • you often tried to use math code, but sphinx wasn't able to figure it out (like in a string, either `1L0R`,`1R0L`,`L1R0`,`R1L0`). I replaced these.
  • when writing rst over multiple lines, please see that the indention is right, I also fixed several itemize going over several lines.

I hope I fixed everything, but feel free to look over it, and possibly do further changes. Otherwise, I'll give it a positive review as soon as the patchbot is happy.

Cheers, Christian

[VivianePons]

Oh ok, I see the name of the maps have been changed on the other ticket.

Thank's a lot for your review and changes. As you said, I hadn't checked the docbuild (my wrong). I've had a look and it seems ok.

[jdemeyer]

Don't use assertions for bad user input. An assertion failure is by definition a bug in the code. To catch bad user input, use

raise ValueError('foo must be a positive number')

[stumpc5]

@Viviane, are you taking care of that, or should I do it?

[VivianePons]

If you have time, it would be great if you could do it. I'm a bit overloaded with work right now!