> >> 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.
Yeah, I see the point. Number 3 was to avoid having the super-generic constructors like Graph and LinearCode in the catalogue. But there will only be few of them anyway, so perhaps one should rather strive for consistency here. >> 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 > Hehe, OK. But you can see where my confusion came from ;-) Best, Johan -- 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.
