Helloooooooooooooooo !!! and still much faster than the c_graph implementation. >
Well... I spent *quite* some time over this problem, wrote a LOT of code and documentation , to find out later that this could be solved in a *very small* patch. I hope all the work I did could be used later on anyway, but for the moment there should be no further worries about this SCC method. I created a patch for this just there [1], which you will find with some benchmarks. http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/12235 As a side note, I've also been > testing subgraph functionality. Eg., > self.M.subgraph(self.rand_verts(K)), which maybe has a better > implementation using subgraph_search() ?? > Nonononono ! This subgraph method has nothing to do with subgraph_search ! The subgraph method takes as an argument a set of vertices and returns the graph induced by those vertices. The subgraph_search (and all the subgraph_search_* method) take as an argument *another graph*, and look for copies of this other graph inside of the first one. Which is dead harder :-D > Anyways, I greatly appreciate your help with this. It would be great > to be able to use Sage/Python to run all of our code. > Please complain whenever you have the slightest thought that Sage may not be the best graph library in the world :-p Have fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuun ! :-p Nathann -- To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support URL: http://www.sagemath.org
