> In particular, I don't feel that catalogues should only contain famous > constructions and families (PetersenGraph, NathannCohenGraph, etc.). For > one thing, the distinction is not well-defined: there is no real > difference between "generic" constructors and gigantic but specifically > named families of objects (e.g. Alternant codes in coding theory).
Hmmm.. Just to give an idea of numbers: there are 181 elements in graphs.<tab>. All of them are famous graphs, or famous families of graphs. > To sum up, I would put a class/function in the respective catalogue if: > 1) It's "polished" as in nicely callable by the user in a Sage session. > 2) It's reasonably useful for people interested in the field of the > catalogue. > 3) It's not imported in the global name space. I tend to disagree with point "3". In the case of designs, we have some objects (the old ones) available in the global namespace, and some others (the more recent ones) which are not. It woud be messy to have "some of them" in the catalog, and "some others" in the global namespace. If some must be put inside of the catalog, then let it be all of them. > Though I know nothing about two-graphs, it therefore seems that I would > vote for putting TwoGraph in graphs.<tab>. Well, a TwoGraph is not a graph but that's another problem :-P Nathann -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
