 My recommended Rust migration order:

  1. Add an internal indexed representation: labels <-> indices.
  2. Move transitive closure to Rust.
  3. Use that closure to speed zeta summaries/matrices.
  4. Add Rust Mobius matrix computation.
  5. Add Rust linear-extension counting with bitmask memoization.
  6. Consider ideal lattice generation once the representation boundary is clearer.

  The key design point: don’t have Rust operate on string labels internally. Python should map labels to integer indices, Rust should compute on
  indices/bitsets/vectors, then Python maps results back to the current public API. That keeps the Python API stable while letting the heavy
  work move over cleanly.


› labels as in the poset node names and their relations?


• Yes.

  By labels, I mean the current string names for poset elements:

  "A", "B", "C", "D"
  "x1", "x2", "x3"
  "{}", "{1}", "{1, 2}"
  "{1}|{2, 3}"

  Right now relations are also label-based:

  [("A", "B"), ("A", "C"), ("B", "D"), ("C", "D")]

  For Rust, the better internal representation would be integer-based:

  order = ["A", "B", "C", "D"]

  label_to_index = {
      "A": 0,
      "B": 1,
      "C": 2,
      "D": 3,
  relations = [
      (0, 1),
      (0, 2),
      (1, 3),
      (2, 3),
  ]

  Then Rust computes on compact indices:

  0 < 1
  0 < 2
  1 < 3
  2 < 3

  and returns index-based results. Python converts them back to labels when needed.

  Example:

  Rust returns comparable pairs:

  [(0, 1), (0, 2), (0, 3), (1, 3), (2, 3)]

  Python maps back to:

  [("A", "B"), ("A", "C"), ("A", "D"), ("B", "D"), ("C", "D")]

  So yes: labels are the poset node names, and relations are the ordered pairs between those labels.


› can we tie it to a poset-side dict? to make arbitrarily named labels work? if that makes sense


• Yes, that makes sense, and it’s the right boundary.

  Add a Poset-side index map derived from the canonical order:

  self.order = self.canonical_order()
  self.index = {label: i for i, label in enumerate(self.order)}
  self.labels = list(self.order)

  Then anything Rust-facing uses indices:

  def indexed_relations(self) -> list[tuple[int, int]]:
      return [
          (self.index[source], self.index[target])
          for source in self.order
          for target in self.children_of(source)
      ]

  That preserves arbitrary labels because Python owns the label mapping:

  "task: compile assets" -> 0
  "{1}|{2, 3}" -> 1
  ("tuple", "label") maybe later -> 2

  Rust only sees:

  n = 4
  edges = [(0, 1), (0, 2), (1, 3), (2, 3)]

  Then Python maps results back:

  def label_pair(self, i: int, j: int) -> tuple[str, str]:
      return self.labels[i], self.labels[j]

  I’d probably name them explicitly to avoid ambiguity:

  self.label_to_index
  self.index_to_label

  or:

  self.element_to_index
  self.index_to_element

  Since your domain language is “elements,” I’d lean:

  self.element_to_index
  self.index_to_element

  This also gives you a stable bridge for future Rust features without changing the public API.


› yes, i agree with element_to_index and index_to_element. [Pasted Content 2189 chars]

  gpt-5.5 medium · ~/project/Poset_Explorer