#19520: implement random triangulations in a bijective way
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
Reporter: | Owner:
chapoton | Status: needs_review
Type: | Milestone: sage-6.10
enhancement | Resolution:
Priority: major | Merged in:
Component: graph | Reviewers:
theory | Work issues:
Keywords: | Commit:
random graph | 10677c9623d385ac578d6de227efc7d1652edb5e
Authors: | Stopgaps:
Frédéric Chapoton |
Report Upstream: N/A |
Branch: |
u/chapoton/19520 |
Dependencies: |
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
Comment (by ncohen):
Hello Frédéric,
Yours is clearly better, and unless there is a specific reason why we
should
keep the old one (please enlighten me) I do not see the point to have it
around.
First, because 'graphs.RandomTriangulation' should preferably be what you
implement now: at least the notion of 'random' is clear (and what one
would expect).
If you insist on keeping the other, then perhaps it could be a (non-
default)
option of `RandomTriangulation`? Let us not kee code just for the sake of
not
throwing anything away. What you did is what `RandomTriangulation` should
be. If
it had been like this from the start, we certainly wouldn't have added the
other
function later.
> Should I use `.append` and `.extend` everywhere possible ?
Yes, please. Let us not waste ressources when we can easily avoid it.
Nathann
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/19520#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.
