#19223: Graphs: missing error check for depth_first_search(..., distance=0)
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: jmantysalo | Owner:
Type: defect | Status: new
Priority: minor | Milestone: sage-6.9
Component: graph theory | Resolution:
Keywords: | Merged in:
Authors: Jori Mäntysalo | Reviewers:
Report Upstream: N/A | Work issues:
Branch: | Commit:
u/jmantysalo/graphs__missing_error_check_for_depth_first_search______distance_0_|
ec0e5b3167db96d936ed1f70bb8dbbcb19201895
Dependencies: | Stopgaps:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by jmantysalo):
Replying to [comment:4 ncohen]:
> 'Another way' may be to do this kind of replacement:
>
> {{{
> #!diff
> -queue=[(v,0) for v in reversed(start)]
> +queue=[(v,0) for v in reversed(start) if v in self]
> }}}
>
> The behaviour is a bit different, but well... What do you think?
For every case, also to those with `distance != 0`? Sounds kind of
dangerous.
> we should really find something better than adding 30 lines of code to
deal with a rather stupid corner-case
Simple. We should have global internal functions for this. Like
`_check_integer_all()`, `_check_integer_nonnegative()` and
`_check_integer_positive()`. Then also error messages would be consistent.
A topic for sage-devel?
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/19223#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.
