I did make one important update. The nodes no longer need to be integers.
You can build a graph of nodes and adjacency lists without the pain of
mapping to indexes. Also, the "adjacency lists" can be a provided map, or
any function from node->neighbors.
(The fact that Clojure maps are functions of their keys is amazing. Why
haven't other languages figured that out?)
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 9:50 PM, Jeffrey Straszheim <
straszheimjeff...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It would be easy to convert from your form to adjacency lists, so if you
> want it write a converter :) I think we should keep the algorithms
> *basically* efficient. I don't see that as premature optimization at all.
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 9:37 PM, Eric <ericwnorm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Feb 23, 6:38 pm, Jeffrey Straszheim <straszheimjeff...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Well, right now I'm just handling directed graphs, and basically
>> treating
>> > nodes as integer indexes, with a simple formula from index to adjacency
>> list
>> > of nodes.
>> >
>>
>> I would actually like to see an implementation that more closely
>> resembles the mathematical representation of graphs:
>>
>> A graph is <V, E>, where V is a set of vertices and E is a set of
>> edges <v1, v2>.
>>
>> It's really easy to do with maps and sets:
>>
>> {:V #{1 2 3 4 5} :E #{{:a 1 :b 2} . . . .
>>
>> It is less efficient than yours, but let's not optimize too soon.
>> >>
>>
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
