Opened 5 years ago

Closed 5 years ago

#22121 closed enhancement (fixed)

py3 : future-proof map in doctests of combinat folder

Reported by: chapoton Owned by:
Priority: major Milestone: sage-7.6
Component: python3 Keywords:
Cc: tscrim, jdemeyer, aapitzsch, jmantysalo Merged in:
Authors: Frédéric Chapoton Reviewers: Travis Scrimshaw
Report Upstream: N/A Work issues:
Branch: ef85cbc (Commits, GitHub, GitLab) Commit: ef85cbc6cfb7f2a0076b3bb4529cb410aec245c7
Dependencies: Stopgaps:

Status badges

Description (last modified by chapoton)

as a step towards python3

let us write the doctests so that map can be an iterator

here in combinat folder

part of #16073

Change History (7)

comment:1 Changed 5 years ago by chapoton

  • Branch set to u/chapoton/22121
  • Cc tscrim jdemeyer aapitzsch jmantysalo added
  • Commit set to 01f27e999e714b9908b50c74cbc712512e1c1e2d
  • Status changed from new to needs_review

New commits:

151aa37PY3 get rid of the last .itervalues() in py files
01f27e9more future-proof doctests w.r.t. to "map" in "combinat"

comment:2 Changed 5 years ago by git

  • Commit changed from 01f27e999e714b9908b50c74cbc712512e1c1e2d to ef85cbc6cfb7f2a0076b3bb4529cb410aec245c7

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. This was a forced push. New commits:

ef85cbcmore future-proof doctests w.r.t. to "map" in "combinat"

comment:3 Changed 5 years ago by tscrim

  • Milestone changed from sage-7.5 to sage-7.6
  • Reviewers set to Travis Scrimshaw

Is there a reason why you changed some of them to list comprehension and some to list(map(foo, bar))? I understand the ones with lambda functions, but there are some that changed seeming arbitrary. I just am curious if there was a reason.

comment:4 Changed 5 years ago by chapoton

no special reason. I turned things into list comprehension when it was easy and quick, and went to the simple but ugly solution otherwise.

comment:5 Changed 5 years ago by chapoton

  • Description modified (diff)

comment:6 Changed 5 years ago by tscrim

  • Status changed from needs_review to positive_review

That's something what I figured, but thought I'd check just to be sure.

comment:7 Changed 5 years ago by vbraun

  • Branch changed from u/chapoton/22121 to ef85cbc6cfb7f2a0076b3bb4529cb410aec245c7
  • Resolution set to fixed
  • Status changed from positive_review to closed
Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.