#7288: Gomory-Hu Trees
----------------------------+-----------------------------------------------
Reporter: ncohen | Owner: rlm
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_review
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-4.3.4
Component: graph theory | Keywords:
Author: | Upstream: N/A
Reviewer: | Merged:
Work_issues: |
----------------------------+-----------------------------------------------
Comment(by abmasse):
Some questions/comments:
1. You said you merged my patch with yours, but there seems to miss many
modifications I did on the docstring. Does it mean that you don't agree
with it ?
2. Following 1, I think you should at least add an OUTPUT field,
especially for the functions `edge_cut`, `vertex_cut`. It is important
that the user knows what he's going to have returned when using your
functions.
3. The same comment about returning tuples instead of lists. I agree with
you that this is minor, but I think there is a reason why the two data
structures exist in Python. Tuples seem more immutable while lists are
dynamical. Here, you return fixed things that shouldn't be modified.
4. I insist on the point that the `vertices` parameter should be hidden. I
think this is important... the signature of the function is a very
important feature to understand what the function does.
If you agree with that and since you've put a lot of work since the
beginning, I have no problem at all to change all these by myself.
Another remark : when merging my changes, it's better to create another
patch that applies on top of your changes and on mine at the same time.
This way, one can visualize more easily what each of us did and when. This
can very simply realized with mercurial. You only need to apply, say, the
two first patches, and then create a new patch with `hg qnew` that applies
on top of both the first patches.
So as soon as you tell me that I can make some changes, I'll do them, but
I don't want to work for nothing, so I'll wait till you answer.
Note that I tested the new functions and I agree with what they do,
everything works fine, it's just the documentation and some code choices
that I want to discuss.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/7288#comment:17>
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 post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-trac?hl=en.
