> >> Even if it does turn out that this technique performs worse than Sage on >> some graphs, is it worth trying to integrate it as an option for users? >> > > Are these algorithms published? (sorry, "Mark Bell" isn't very googleable; > e.g. I found this https://arxiv.org/a/bell_m_3.html > but this does not show any graph theory algorithms you mention :-)) > Surely, have more fast implementations of known algorithms is great; have > implementations of something > unpublished, not so---indeed, code reviewers would try to check that the > implementation is implementing > something published, but I don't think reviewing correctness of algorithms > is something one would reasonably expect from a > code review. > > I think it is good to add it even if it is not published (although at least an (arXiv) preprint would be nice). In either case, IMO it would be good to have a way of choosing which algorithm to run in the methods, both for testing and verification purposes.
Best, Travis -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
