#15278: Hash and equality for graphs
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: SimonKing | Owner:
Type: defect | Status: needs_work
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-6.1
Component: graph theory | Resolution:
Keywords: | Merged in:
Authors: Simon King | Reviewers: Nathann Cohen
Report Upstream: N/A | Work issues:
Branch: | Commit:
u/SimonKing/ticket/15278 | 51d63284da70ffa4772a0d0fda6020750aef2e6d
Dependencies: #12601, #15491 | Stopgaps:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by ncohen):
Oh. I see. Hacks.
Well, that makes sense indeed. Looks like a proof that we shouldn't rely
on this `_immutable` flag. Especially when none of us knows who exactly
uses it `:-P`
Is there an usual "is_immutable" function in immutable objects ? Perhaps
we should do this. This function would check the actual backend, and
return its answer accordingly.
This being said, checking the backend does not exactly mean that all other
properties of graphs are "protected", like the embedding and everything.
Hmmm...
Okay, I just read your latest post : the point is that this ._immutable
flag is a hack. Shouldn't we just make their code use the new backend, so
that their code is not hacked anymore ? Right now they claim their graphs
are immutable, though they aren't. Seems like the way to go, isn't it ?
Nathann
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/15278#comment:67>
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.
