#18028: Remove GraphBundle
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: vbraun | Owner:
Type: defect | Status: positive_review
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-6.6
Component: graph theory | Resolution:
Keywords: | Merged in:
Authors: Volker Braun | Reviewers: Nathann Cohen
Report Upstream: N/A | Work issues:
Branch: | Commit:
u/vbraun/remove_graphbundle | bfb444341d3b3a3f3a546338bc61f79085b9abf1
Dependencies: | Stopgaps:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by ncohen):
> I've never used !BipartiteGraph. Is it actually useful, just with a bad
interface? Or completely non-functional? At least you seem to be able to
construct one, maybe start with a deprecation and see if anybody
complains.
At some point it was claimed that it was "for teaching purposes", and it
was badly designed from the start. `add_edge` does not check that the
graph is bipartite, it checks that the previously computed bipartition
stays valid, which is a wrong path to take for non-connected graphs.
Then you have the usual problems:
{{{
sage: g=BipartiteGraph(5)
sage: g.complement()
...
RuntimeError: Edge vertices must lie in different partitions.
}}}
Honestly if we must have such a class, we cannot afford to let it inherit
from `Graph`. And from the way it appears in the doc, real graph users may
want to give it a try, and regret it later.
Nathann
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/18028#comment:6>
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.
