In the interest of full disclosure, I am a Sage developer. I'm preparing a patch that affects the Dancing Links interface in Sage. The scores of some of my solutions past and future will be impacted by this. For example,


instead of

[[p[i]for i in x]for x in DLXCPP(p)]



instead of

sum(1 for x in DLXCPP(...))



by a side-effect of the function definition


I think, as both a Sage developer and a researcher using this function, that this is the right interface for the Dancing Links algorithm. I put the old interface in, and it's time to fix it.

  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Er...are you sure that you have posted to the right place? I don't see what this has to do with CodeGolf.SE. \$\endgroup\$ Nov 25, 2013 at 0:22
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @dmckee I'm changing Sage in a way that will improve my scores on codegolf.se. I feel that warrants disclosure. \$\endgroup\$
    – boothby
    Nov 25, 2013 at 0:51
  • \$\begingroup\$ Sounds good to me. I mean, Sage isn't a "designed for golfing" language, so if improvements to the language makes existing golf solutions shorter, I'd say that's a good thing. \$\endgroup\$ Nov 25, 2013 at 2:21


You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .