Ah, not too bad. Usually class diagrams are top to bottom, but I guess that would be a lot more roomy.
One thing that I'd like to see in the core is some kind of linking of classes and their metaclasses (maybe a dashed line). One thing that I noticed from the full graph is that we have an abstract base class for the trig functions, but not for the inverse trig functions. So that should be fixed. Aaron Meurer On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 9:06 AM, Matthew Rocklin <[email protected]> wrote: > Generally speaking graph visualization of trees/dags is much more reasonable > than for general graphs. I.e. the dot program is far more reliable than the > neato program for layout when you can use it. > > I made a small program that does this here > https://gist.github.com/3332164 > > It produces results like what are found here > http://people.cs.uchicago.edu/~mrocklin/tempspace/sympy-graphs/ > > You're right that SymPy all at once is difficult to take in. SymPy/core on > the other hand is very manageable. Each of the individual modules also come > out nicely (see geometry, matrices) > > Note that I haven't applied any style to these graphs. There is a lot we > could do to clarify things by playing with node size, edge length, spring > stiffness, etc.... > > Anyway, I encourage people to take a look. I suspect that by looking at the > class structure as a whole we can find some organizational improvements. > > Best, > -Matt > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "sympy" 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/sympy?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sympy" 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/sympy?hl=en.
