On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 10:57 AM, Bearophile <bearophileh...@lycos.com> wrote: > Geremy Condra: > >> is there a particular way you want your attribution line to read? > > You can just use my nickname (in all lowercase), with the list of > parts you have used. Don't worry. > > >> Well, we all seem to have reinvented the wheel differently ;) > > Maybe also because they are designed for different purposes. > > >> Bearophile, Tiago- any interest in trying to combine the >> best parts of our libraries, with an eye towards eventual >> integration into the standard library? > > The first thing to do is to ask Guido and Hettinger if they are > willing to put a "good" graph module into the std lib. If their answer > is positive for some definition of "good", then we can think about > doing something. > > Several years ago I have suggested to put a graph module in the std > lib, and the answer was something like: "Put the lib online, and if > people use it a lot, we'll see to put it into the std lib." In the > meantime my lib was used by no one and ten other graph libs are used > (networkx seems among the most used), but I think no one of them has > shown a strong usage. (In the meantime Hettinger has written and added > two or three or four GOOD data structures to the std lib using a "fast > lane", avoiding the step of popular usage test).
Well, I've just concluded a short conversation with Raymond Hettinger, and I think its fair to characterize him as being opposed to the idea at present. In addition to the popularity test, he's also noted that ideally a core CPython dev should be involved in the project. Putting the two together is, AFAICS, a death knell for any extant graph lib. Having said that, I'd still like to see how much common ground we could find among the existing libraries. IMHO, there's a lot more in common than there is different. Geremy Condra -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
