geremy condra wrote:
...........
I don't have a problem with adding this if there's a strong desire for it,
but at the moment I'm leaning towards a wait-and-see approach, for
all the reasons you described.
Geremy Condra
I don't want to sound pessimistic, but graph and digraph theory has a lot of
history, especially in computer science. There are already very many
implementations eg
http://code.google.com/p/igraph
http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/release/libs/graph
http://ernst-schroeder.uni.lu/Digraph/doc/
http://code.google.com/p/python-graph
http://compbio.washington.edu/~zach/py_graph/doc/html/public/py_graph-module.html
and many others......some of the above already seem to be very useful.
Is there reason to suppose that any one representation of graphs or digraphs is
so good we need to add it to python?
Even for fairly common algorithms eg Dijkstra's shortest path there doesn't seem
to be complete agreement on how to implement them; for the details of how
nodes/edges/paths should be stored and efficiently manipulated there is huge
variety.
Wait seems like a good policy.
--
Robin Becker
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
