#17449: deprecate/remove Graph.to_partition and Poset.to_graph
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
Reporter: | Owner:
ncohen | Status: needs_review
Type: | Milestone: sage-6.5
defect | Resolution:
Priority: major | Merged in:
Component: graph | Reviewers:
theory | Work issues:
Keywords: | Commit:
Authors: | a8822900d5d9e428f4fd92d52ed9d00840ef61df
Nathann Cohen | Stopgaps:
Report Upstream: N/A |
Branch: |
u/ncohen/17449 |
Dependencies: |
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
Comment (by tscrim):
Replying to [comment:19 ncohen]:
> > Again, the function is documented (and we have interactive
documentation). It's not hurting anyone, so there's no problem; just leave
it be.
>
> I do believe that it does harm by being there. It is not a function that
should ever be used in Sage or by anyone else, as other ways exist to get
the same result and because its name is unclear: we could very well decide
to make it return a different graph later, the function would still be
correct as ".to_graph()" would still turn the Poset into "a graph". I
think that knowledgeable people here (like Dima) call that 'semantics'.
Then rename the method. Here's a possibility `cover_relations_graph`.
> While I understand that you want users to easily find out that there
exists a way to get a graph from a `Poset` by looking at the list of
methods, I also believe that ".incomparability_graph" does the job and
that users will find it. Those who know what they are looking for will
find `.hasse_diagram` quickly enough.
`incomparability_graph` does not do the same thing. The `to_graph` only
returns a graph by the cover relations, and it's a bad assumption that
typical users will know what to do because they have not been raising hell
over posets and graphs in Sage.
> Would you be willing, despite everything, to let us procede with the
removal of this function ? The considerations above matter to me, and also
to some extent to the other persons who concurred on the sage-devel
thread.
In short, no. I strongly believe in not removing functionality, and since
you think something needs to change, then you can change the name.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/17449#comment:20>
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/d/optout.
