M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
geremy condra wrote:
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 12:57 PM, M.-A. Lemburg <m...@egenix.com> wrote:
geremy condra wrote:
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 7:04 AM, M.-A. Lemburg <m...@egenix.com> wrote:
I think the only major CS data type missing from Python is some
form of (fast) directed graph implementation à la kjGraph:
http://gadfly.sourceforge.net/kjbuckets.html
With these, you can easily build all sorts of relations between
objects and apply fast operations on them. In fact, it should then
be possible to build a complete relational database in Python
(along the lines of Gadfly).
If you're in the market for a Python graph library, you may want
to check out Graphine- I'm obviously biased (I wrote most of it)
but it has a few more bells and whistles than kjbuckets, and is
pretty darned easy to use. It also supports undirected and
bridge graphs.
Thanks for the hint :-)
The lib looks nice and would probably serve as a good prototype
for writing a new built-in type for Python.
I suspect that it would have a better chance at getting into
collections than becoming a builtin, but who knows. I'd just
like to have something like it in the standard library.
Integrating an easy-to-use graph library into the collections
module (and it's C companion) is good idea.
This would have to be written in C, though,
That's currently in the works, along with database backing.
We'd welcome any help though... hint, hint...
and come under a Python compatible license.
I'm willing to dual license under the Python license if
there were a substantial interest in doing so, and I'm
confident that the other authors and maintainers
would feel the same way.
Great !
The question in my mind is whether such an interest exists.
Since Python is being used more and more in CS classes,
such an addition would complete the tool-set and make Python
even more attractive for undergrad CS courses.
Finding out how much interest exists in advance is always
a bit difficult with new data-structures. People have to
get a feeling of how they can be put to good use first,
so it's a chicken-and-egg problem.
We've seen the same thing happen with sets. They were first
made available via a separate module and then became built-ins
after people realized how useful they are in practice.
I'd like to add that people (myself included) were already using dicts
for sets before the module was written, so there was already a clear
demand for them.
With graphs, it's probably going to take a little longer
before people realize their usefulness - graph theory is
certainly a lot more complicated than set theory :-)
With the built-in feature moratorium
currently in place, there's about 1.5-2 years time to get this
done; perhaps a good GSoC project for next year :-)
I'd love to have Graphine be a GSoC project, although
if the target were to get it into collections the
moratorium wouldn't change the timeline AFAICS.
True.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
