Hello Travis, 2014-12-03 0:24 UTC+01:00, Travis Scrimshaw <tsc...@ucdavis.edu>: > I strongly object to removing the function to_partition as it is useful > to people (beyond FindStat), but I'm not opposed to renaming it to > something like connected_components_partition.
I find your proposition too ambiguous. For me, I would expect that such function returns the (set) partition induced on the set of vertices... (which is just what connected_components does). > Similar for to_graph. > Although if you want to argue about removing "one-line" functions, we > should also remove add_edges, add_vertices, delete_edges, delete_vertices, > subdivide_edges, average_degree, average_distance, etc. No. I am sorry if that was misinterpreted. One line methods like map(len, self.connected_components()) or equivalently [len(cc) for cc in self.connected_components()] which are just standard Python are very different from self._backend.add_edge(u, v, label, self._directed) which strongly depends on the implementation of graphs in Sage. By "one line function" I meant "one line function that anybody can reproduce after one hour of Python". > Also I cannot > emphasize sufficiently that not all Sage users who use the graph code are > graph theorists. True. But I am not sure it helps to decide here (or I misunderstood something hidden in your sentence) Vincent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
