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

fixed ConsiderStructureConstants #5487

Merged

Conversation

ThomasBreuer
Copy link
Contributor

It may happen that ConsiderStructureConstants excludes all candidates.
Up to now, it was possible that one runs into an error in such a case because the function wants to proceed and tries to access entries in an empty list.

Benjamin Sambale found an example in which the quick parameter is set to true and hence some candidates do not get excluded in an earlier step, but the error could in principle happen also with the default setting quick:= false.

It may happen that `ConsiderStructureConstants` excludes all candidates.
Up to now, it was possible that one runs into an error in such a case
because the function wants to proceed and tries to access entries in an
empty list.

Benjamin Sambale found an example in which the `quick` parameter is set
to `true` and hence some candidates do not get excluded in an earlier step,
but the error could in principle happen also with the default setting
`quick:= false`.
@ThomasBreuer ThomasBreuer added kind: bug Issues describing general bugs, and PRs fixing them kind: bug: unexpected error Issues describing bugs in which computation unexpectedly encounters an error, and PRs fixing them topic: library release notes: not needed PRs introducing changes that are wholly irrelevant to the release notes labels Aug 16, 2023
Copy link
Member

@frankluebeck frankluebeck left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Both, the improvement of the documentation of PossibleClassFusions, and the fix of the code for ConsiderStructureConstants look fine to me.
Maybe this PR could contain another fix: the documentation of ConsiderStructureConstants contains "for which" twice in a row.

## with character table <A>subtbl</A>, it may happen that setting
## <C>quick</C> to <K>true</K> causes <Ref Oper="PossibleClassFusions"/>
## to return solutions,
## whereas the value <K>false</K> yields an empty list),
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Not a change request for this PR, but perhaps a remark for a future revision: this is part of a single sentence starting in line 920 and continuing for over 60 lines. That strikes me as very "German" and not particularly reader friendly ;-). Surely some of those ; could be turned into . ?

@fingolfin fingolfin merged commit 8fa61c5 into gap-system:master Aug 18, 2023
22 checks passed
@ThomasBreuer ThomasBreuer deleted the TB_ConsiderStructureConstants branch August 18, 2023 07:59
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
kind: bug: unexpected error Issues describing bugs in which computation unexpectedly encounters an error, and PRs fixing them kind: bug Issues describing general bugs, and PRs fixing them release notes: not needed PRs introducing changes that are wholly irrelevant to the release notes topic: library
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants