On 12/5/2009 9:41 AM, Carl Banks wrote:
On Dec 4, 12:46 pm, geremy condra<debat...@gmail.com> wrote:
more common than full-blown graph package).
Sure, its a tree, which is also a graph. In this case it looks to
me more like a directed acyclic graph than anything, but its
pretty much just semantics since the interface is functionally
equivalent.
I'd have to agree with Lie, yes a tree is a graph, but it's simply not
an argument that Python community is grasping for graph structures.
It's like arguing that the Python community could benefit from a
quaternion type, because quaternions are actually heavily used in
Python, because a scalar number is a quarternion.
>
Carl Banks
(Would be +1 on a good graph implementation... just not because of
ElementTree.)
I think this could be an interpretation of the Zen:
Simple is better than complex.
Complex is better than complicated.
can be read as:
List is better than Tree
Tree is better than Graph
not having Tree and Graph package in the standard library force most
people to find List-based solution. And people that know they need
graphs will find them in 3rd party modules. I have needed Trees a few
times in python, but very rarely a Graph (except for playing around).
YMDWV (your mileage definitely will vary).
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
