If you really want to search all edges, why not just make the dual fast to create and do a DFS on vertices of the dual?
On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 11:47 PM, James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>wrote: > On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 5:41 PM, Claudio Squarcella > <squar...@dia.uniroma3.it> wrote: > > the method "discoveryEdge" currently tells whether or not the algorithm > > should explore a subtree/branch and add related vertices to the > stack/queue. > > So I see no conflict in the implementation. Maybe you are saying that the > > edge should be explored *right before* the vertex it leads to -- but why? > > AFAIK a standard graph search is only concerned with *vertices*. In that > > sense "finishEdge" becomes useless, as the responsibility for returning > > prematurely is entirely covered by "finishVertex". Am I raving mad? :-) > > > > Well, you bring up a good point. Are we concerned with "visiting" > both the edges and the vertices? Typically, I just care about the > vertices when doing dfs/bfs on graphs, but I can see how one might > want to do both. Also, I don't know if we have an abstraction for > this, but the order in which you add your connected vertices can be > important, too (might want to do a "greedy" bfs/dfs). Unfortunately, > I've not had much time to dig into this code, but I would really love > to find some time. I like this kind of stuff. It makes me feel like > all that discrete mathematics stuff I studied wasn't a complete waste! > :) In the "business" world, you don't get to play with this stuff > that often. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > >
