#18972: twographs and Seidel switching
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: dimpase | Owner:
Type: defect | Status: new
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-6.9
Component: graph theory | Resolution:
Keywords: | Merged in:
Authors: | Reviewers:
Report Upstream: N/A | Work issues:
Branch: | Commit:
u/dimpase/seidelsw | b76c9a0369a5babc98481d6b96125c9b86f1adc9
Dependencies: | Stopgaps:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by ncohen):
> I just posted a question on sage-devel: perhaps it's only me, and then
I'll have to live with this :-)
Good idea. I prefer it in small case, but I want it to be somehow
consistent.
> In a similar vein you can say that Laplacian matrix should not be there,
as it is a simple variation of the adjacency matrix, too...
I would not say that, for there are books written about the laplacian
matrix is .... well. More confidential.
> It is there because we want to have readable code with readable
documentation. It is syntactic sugar, if you wish.
The only guy who uses this expression is Nicolas Thierry. If you want me
to believe you are just trying to trick me into acting the way you want
it, there is no better way.
> Of course you can say that all syntactic sugar is a waste of time and
space, but without it you end up with obscure unreadable implementation..
Obscure? The 4 lines code?
Nathann
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/18972#comment:5>
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.
