On 12/7/10 5:25 AM, Minh Nguyen wrote:
Hi Robert,
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 9:56 PM, Robert Miller<r...@rlmiller.org> wrote:
I think you can accomplish all these goals without "unbloating"
graphs.
Of course it can be done without unbloating the various graph classes.
I think Sage users have gotten used to (please feel free to
correct me on this, Sage users!) looking for a method via tab
completion.
Here are two ways to refactor code, while keeping users happy. Both
approaches below rely on keeping the current interfaces for spanning
tree methods, while also creating a new module called
sage/graphs/spanning_tree.py(x).
* Move the relevant core code to the said proposed module. The core
code I'm referring to would be code that does the actual computation
of spanning trees, excluding some basic sanity checks, etc. The
relevant existing methods would be rewritten to call the corresponding
interfaces in sage/graphs/spanning_tree.py(x).
Take the case of min_spanning_tree() in sage/graphs/graph.py. We move
the core code that computes minimum spanning trees into
sage/graphs/spanning_tree.py(x) and improve the minimum spanning tree
code in that new module. The method min_spanning_tree() would not be
removed entirely, but would still retain its current interface and
have some possible improvement as necessary. It's only the definition
that would be changed; the rewritten definition would actually call
the relevant minimum spanning tree function in
sage/graphs/spanning_tree.py(x) to do the heavy duty work of computing
minimum spanning trees. Furthermore, we add a new method called
min_spanning_tree() to the class definition of digraphs in
sage/graphs/digraph.py to mirror its counterpart in
sage/graphs/graph.py. But we actually call the relevant function in
sage/graphs/spanning_tree.py(x) as per the rewritten
min_spanning_tree() for undirected graphs.
* Do the same as in the previous approach, but add deprecation
warnings to the effect that the relevant methods would be entirely
removed in a future release.
I worry that it is too confusing to have a min_spanning_tree function in
the documentation of the spanning_tree module that is different than the
min_spanning_tree method of a graph (different interface, more checks,
etc.). How about an option 3:
* directly import the spanning_tree.min_spanning_tree function into the
graph/digraph namespaces.
That way, spanning_tree.min_spanning_tree(G) is exactly the same as
G.min_spanning_tree().
Thanks,
Jason
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URL: http://www.sagemath.org
