#12318: **kwds in the Graph constructor is confusing
-----------------------------+----------------------------------------------
   Reporter:  brunellus      |          Owner:  jason, ncohen, rlm
       Type:  defect         |         Status:  needs_review      
   Priority:  minor          |      Milestone:  sage-5.0          
  Component:  graph theory   |       Keywords:                    
Work_issues:                 |       Upstream:  N/A               
   Reviewer:  Nathann Cohen  |         Author:  Lukáš Lánský      
     Merged:                 |   Dependencies:                    
-----------------------------+----------------------------------------------
Changes (by ncohen):

  * status:  needs_work => needs_review


Old description:

> The possibility of using any argument in the Graph constructor without an
> error is very confusing, see #10441 for some example. Is the universal
> **kwds argument necessary?
>
> Apply:
>     * [attachment:trac_12318_removing_kwds.3.patch]

New description:

 The possibility of using any argument in the Graph constructor without an
 error is very confusing, see #10441 for some example. Is the universal
 **kwds argument necessary?

 Apply:
     * [attachment:trac_12318_removing_kwds.3.patch]
     * [attachment:trac_12318_review.patch]

--

Comment:

 Well....

 So.

 In his patch Lukasz replaced the arguments to Graph that were in the files
 by what they *intended*. For instance, he replaced dense=True by
 sparse=False, which makes sense. The thing is that the "dense" value was
 not read by the Graph backend, and as a result writing Graph(dense=True)
 actually created a sparse Graph.
 He replaced the values by what was meant, but what was executed was
 actually different.
 So I replaced the code, in this second patch, by what was actually run.

 All this tells us is that there's something very wrong with the Dense
 graph backends. That's urgent to fix but does not mean computations went
 wrong before, precisely because the dense backend is almost never used.

 This patch "solves the problem". And I created ticket #12387 for the dense
 backend problem.

 Nathann

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/12318#comment:9>
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.

Reply via email to