On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 03:47:03 -0000, geremy condra <debat...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 8:42 PM, Rhodri James
<rho...@wildebst.demon.co.uk> wrote:
g = Graph(
nodes=[Node("a", colour="red"),
Node("b", colour="white"),
Node("c", colour="blue")],
edges=[Edge("a", "b", "ab", weight=2),
Edge("a", "c", "ac", is_directed=True),
Edge("b", "c", "bc", style="dotted")],
is_directed=True)
I could see a use for this tracking a database structure using a
constant
graph, hence all set up in one go for preference.
While I agree with the rationale, I think we need to find another way.
Aesthetics aside, directly instantiating edges by giving only node names
requires that the edge be aware of what graph its in to provide expected
behavior, which creates a bit of a chicken-or-the-egg dilemma.
Oops. I missed that, sorry.
How about this: the constructor can take any type of iterable, and
assumes that it follows my earlier format unless it specifies a .items()
method, in which case it takes the values as follows:
isinstance(x, collections.Mapping) is perhaps the right test?
g = Graph(
nodes={'a':{'colour':'red'},
'b':{'colour':'white'},
'c':{'colour':'blue'}},
edges={('a', 'b'):{'name':'ab', 'weight':2},
('a', 'c'):{'name':'ac'},
('b', 'c'):{'name':'bc', 'style':'dotted'}}
)
That's OK for nodes, but for consistency with add_edges I would have
expected the name to be the optional third element of the key tuples. It
works either way, but I can't help feel it's beginning to look a bit ugly.
--
Rhodri James *-* Wildebeest Herder to the Masses
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
