Just wondering if the third TODO (Randomized spanning tree construction) should be removed as well, since I see a function called "random_spanning_tree" exists already. On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 8:23:30 AM UTC+1 adarsh.k...@gmail.com wrote:
> Okay, then I think that line should be removed right? It can be misleading > to potential contributors > > On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 12:31:02 PM UTC+5:30 David Coudert wrote: > >> This query has been added in https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10433. >> I don't think that priority queue can be of any help to speed up the >> current code. >> >> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 11:03:41 AM UTC+2 adarsh.k...@gmail.com >> wrote: >> >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> I was going through Sage's codebase, and I came across the file >>> ``` >>> SAGE_ROOT/src/sage/graphs/spanning_tree.pyx >>> ``` >>> [image: Screenshot from 2022-04-10 14-27-45.png] >>> >>> In the TODO section, it is mentioned that >>> ``` >>> - Rewrite: func:`kruskal` to use priority queues. >>> ``` >>> >>> I looked it up on Google and StackOverFlow, but I didn't come across any >>> such implementation. The standard implementations all prefer to use the >>> DisjointSet data structure. I would like to contribute to Sage and if >>> someone can point me to a good resource which discusses this concept, >>> preferably with a better time complexity than by using Disjoint Sets, that >>> would be really great >>> >> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/3dcb1e2c-e17b-44cd-954d-4784c4e4fba7n%40googlegroups.com.
