Robert Bradshaw wrote: > On Feb 26, 2009, at 12:25 PM, Florent Hivert wrote: > >> Hi Jason, >> >>>> We had removed it from our list of alternatives, because we will be >>>> using the concept of "size" elsewhere in combinatorics (the size >>>> of a >>>> tree, of a permutation, and more generally of a combinatorial >>>> object), >>>> and we could run into a conflict later on. However, we do not >>>> have an >>>> explicit example yet of such conflict, so this option is not closed. >>> In the sage graphs, g.size() gives the number of edges in the graph. >> Edge ??? Why more edge than vertex or edge+vertex... I don't want >> to be rude >> or to patronize, after all I'm very new to sage. But I think that >> choosing >> such ambiguous name is a serious obstacle of name coherency trough >> sage. > > I find this surprising too. At least graphs have a num_edges and > num_vertices method (or, I guess num_verts?)
I'm not saying it's the way it should be; just pointing out the usage. I agree that the term is sufficiently vague so that someone looking at code will probably not guess that g.size() means the number of edges in g. I'd be +1 on a change to a better name and a deprecation of .size() (even though we have a nontrivial amount of code that uses .size()) Jason --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
