> So I would create a similar function for the category of AdditiveSemigroups > called additive_cayley_graph() to avoid any ambiguity and keeps with our > convention that (semi)groups without "additive" are treated as > multiplicative.
I see. Then I have two questions: - Isn't it a bit wrong to have .cayley_graph() and .additive_cayley_graph()? Shouldn't we deprecate '.cayley_graph()` and have .multiplicative_cayley_graph() and .additive_cayley_graph() instead? (or cayley_graph_multiplicative/additive for list-comprehension) - Should we duplicate the code and replace * with +, or is there something cleaner? Nathann -- 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 post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
