Merged
Conversation
Contributor
Author
|
Note that the improved algorithm for |
Contributor
Author
|
Update per 17 jan
|
Closed
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Issue reference
Follow-up from #938
Implementing some recommendations from #937
I aim to keep this PR up to date in case the discussions there lead to required changes.
I keep this PR as a Draft until 10.6.0 is released (unless the maintainers want to include this in there still).
Changes
Following the discussion in #937:
derangementsto be based on the input index of each element, instead of its value (thanks bbayles)by_indexto False. (If other ways are preferred, let me know)distinct_derangementsis updated in a similar wayChecks and tests
I confirm to have run
make all-checks(with everything passing) before submitting this PR.Update per 17 jan
make all-checksstill works