#15850 closed enhancement (fixed)
FiniteStateMachine: provide hook on_duplicate_transition
| Reported by: | cheuberg | Owned by: | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | major | Milestone: | sage-6.2 |
| Component: | combinatorics | Keywords: | finite_state_machine |
| Cc: | dkrenn, skropf, slabbe | Merged in: | |
| Authors: | Clemens Heuberger, Daniel Krenn | Reviewers: | Daniel Krenn, Volker Braun |
| Report Upstream: | N/A | Work issues: | |
| Branch: | 12351e2 (Commits, GitHub, GitLab) | Commit: | |
| Dependencies: | #15841, #15847, #15848 | Stopgaps: |
Status badges
Description (last modified by )
Previously, when inserting a transition which is already present, this
was simply ignored. By providing a hook on_duplicate_transition, user
defined behaviour is now possible. As examples, three functions are
provided (the default ignore, maintaining the previous behaviour;
raise error or add input label). The latter may be used to model a
Markov chain where the input labels are interpreted als transition
probabilities.
Change History (6)
comment:1 Changed 8 years ago by
- Branch set to u/cheuberg/fsm/on_duplicate_transition
- Cc dkrenn skropf added
- Commit set to 12351e2a78fa8bf3b6487495499826eacdf9ebdb
- Dependencies set to #15841, #15847, #15848
- Description modified (diff)
- Status changed from new to needs_review
comment:2 Changed 8 years ago by
- Reviewers set to Daniel Krenn
comment:3 Changed 8 years ago by
- Cc slabbe added
In #15078, comment 19, slabbe recommended having distinct classes FiniteStateMachine, Transducer, Automaton.
Therefore, I think it to be appropriate to briefly explain why I used a hook in this instance instead of having a new class MarkovChain:
- first, I think that it gives us more flexibility to customize the behaviour slightly
- second, having a class
MarkovChainwould probably require us to check whether the sum of the input weights of the transitions leaving a state adds up to 1. This would be quite cumbersome and inefficient. This checking is dealt with in #15961 (depending on this ticket).
comment:4 follow-up: ↓ 6 Changed 8 years ago by
- Reviewers changed from Daniel Krenn to Daniel Krenn, Volker Braun
- Status changed from needs_review to positive_review
Would be nicer to collect stuff into a class/module `duplicate_transaction.raise_error', maybe in the future.
comment:5 Changed 8 years ago by
- Branch changed from u/cheuberg/fsm/on_duplicate_transition to 12351e2a78fa8bf3b6487495499826eacdf9ebdb
- Resolution set to fixed
- Status changed from positive_review to closed
comment:6 in reply to: ↑ 4 Changed 8 years ago by
- Commit 12351e2a78fa8bf3b6487495499826eacdf9ebdb deleted
Replying to vbraun:
Would be nicer to collect stuff into a class/module `duplicate_transaction.raise_error', maybe in the future.
Sorry, I do not really understand your comment. What should be collected in duplicate_transaction.raise_error?
During the review: Made some small changes. Code itself looks fine, doctests pass, docu checked, coverage checked. For me this is a positive review, but it would be good if someone else could have a look on it.