#14980: graph_generators, some more clean up
--------------------------------+---------------------------
Reporter: eisermbi | Owner:
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_info
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-5.12
Component: graph theory | Resolution:
Keywords: | Merged in:
Authors: | Reviewers:
Report Upstream: N/A | Work issues:
Branch: | Dependencies:
Stopgaps: |
--------------------------------+---------------------------
Comment (by ncohen):
Helloooooooo !!
> > '''Part 1:'''
> Since a good name is not so easy to find, let us stick with the name and
just add the description. That makes it clear enough.
"And just add the description" ? Sorry, I don't get your meaning `^^;`
> > '''Part 2:'''
>
> Sure, I did not want to remove any index. But I am curious which index
you are refering to. I thought
> {{{
> __append_to_doc(["BishopGraph", "KingGraph", "KnightGraph",
> "QueenGraph", "RookGraph"])
> }}}
> in the file "graph_generators.py" does this job nowadays. Is there
another index??
Right right, but there was another index in the `chessboard.py` file which
your patch removes. And it's not thaaaaaaaaaat useful, but I still don't
see why you want to remove it. It can only help to have an index of the
methods in each module.
> > - You changed the order of methods in the Platonic Solids, but the
`append_to_doc` method reorders them according to the alphabetical order
`:-P`
> which is ordered by the number of vertices (not alphabetically). I think
it is working...
SOrryyyyyyyyyyyy ! I was convinced that I have made this method sort its
input before building the table. I just re-read the code and it isn't so,
you were right and there is nothing wrong with that.
> > - What do you mean by "chessboard graphs are now a subsection of
families" ?
> In the documentation I changed the level of the heading of chessboard
graphs. Now it looks like "Chessboard graphs" is a subsection of "Families
of graphs". Similar with "Platonic solids".
I don't get this either : none of your patches touch a .rst file `O_o`
> > '''Part 3:'''
> > - Why on earth wouldn't `fullerenes`, `trees`,
`line_graph_forbidden_subgraphs` and `cospectral_graphs` be families of
graphs ? `O_O`
>
> Hence, leaving them under "Families" is okay.
Cool ! `;-)`
> I see. I think it is easier to lookup a file when the section title is
similar to the filename, e.g. "Random graphs" <-> "random.py",
"Miscellaneous" <-> "miscellaneous.py". And the file would also be open
for new graphs other than world maps. That is my reasoning.
Well... It is true, but if there is only one method there anyway, perhaps
we can at least wait for another method before renaming the file... `:-P`
> No, I took each function and put it either in `families.py` or
`small.py` (never both!). My statement about "double listing" graphs might
have been confusing. I only was referring to the documentation not the
source code. I moved the source code of graphs considered as basic into
their corresponding sections and listed the graph names only a second time
under "Basic structures" in the reference documentation. That is all.
Well, now you are the one adding the name of a graph to a section of the
doc while the method itself is not defined in the module corresponding to
the doc section `:-P`
> Partly, yes. At the moment to check whether a graph exists one also
needs to look at "Basic structures" because a graph might be listed there
instead of its corresponding section. Not so bad either. So I can drop
this part if the change is too complicated... Let me know.
Well.. I hope that the name of most constructors can be guessed through
tab completion only, and from the doc page with a Ctrl + F.
Perhaps we could move some of them from Basic Structures to small graphs,
though... As for some you are right to say that one would not immediately
go look at the "basic structures" to find them. Like Claw graph, or House
graph, or Diamond... Wheel could very well go to families, by the way.
Well, the problem with this section is that it was made to split a big
file in two, and there is no clear reason why some graphs should be there
and not somewhere else... `^^;`
Thank you very much for your work on these files `:-)`
Nathann
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/14980#comment:4>
Sage <http://www.sagemath.org>
Sage: Creating a Viable Open Source Alternative to Magma, Maple, Mathematica,
and MATLAB
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-trac" 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-trac.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
