#18972: twographs and Seidel switching
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: dimpase | Owner:
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_review
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-6.9
Component: graph theory | Resolution:
Keywords: | Merged in:
Authors: | Reviewers: Nathann Cohen
Report Upstream: N/A | Work issues:
Branch: | Commit:
u/dimpase/seidelsw | 2fae2fc7b92d306f1336b6786c67318823f812f4
Dependencies: #18960, #18948, | Stopgaps:
#18988, #18991, #18986, #19018, |
#19019 |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by ncohen):
> done; I also shifted it and the rest of the methods on this ticket to
the **Leftovers** index.
I see no difference in the code of `twograph_descendent`
> It is not even a function. It is a method of Graph, and it produces a
Graph. There are things in Graph that I also find very specific, yet they
belong there by right.
I would agree with you if we had fewer methods, but we have a *LOT* of
them already. It is true that it takes a graph as input and returns a
graph, but it could be advertised properly if it were in the trograph
module, and if we added a "SEEALSO" in the documentation of
`Graph.twograph`. I want it to be found by whoever needs it, but I also
know that everything cannot belong to the graph module. Right now you can
see David and Michele working on a new hyperbolicity algorithm (#19049)
and you wil see that there are *MANY* lines of code in this module which
took a lot of effort. Yet even that is not a Graph method (perhaps it
should be). And you do not see `Graph.pathwidth` nor
`Graph.grundy_coloring` nor `Graph.vertex_separation`, and all of them
took a *LOT* of code and effort.
I don't want to hide what you do, I want to organise this smartly. Some
things are much less useful than others, and your function is an
*optimization* of something that is already available via the twograph
object. Would you agree to let it stay in the twograph module? Whoever
wants to get the `twograph_descendant` of a graph wil definitely look at
`twograph`. (S)He will then look at the `descendant` method, which can
*also* link toward your optimization. This thing has its place in the
twograph class and will be found there, but having the optimization
directly in the `Graph` class does not add a new feature by itself, and
can really be sufficiently advertised through the `TwoGraph` method.
Please, think with me. I'm tired of this endless arguing.
Nathann
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/18972#comment:64>
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.
