I can wrap it with list indeed. I know that six.moves.range is an iterator - in Python 2, it is simply xrange. But I was thinking that perhaps Graph's constructor should be able to understand xrange (or rather, iterators in general) instead of lists when the data is a dictionary of neighbours. Perhaps it may even be more efficient in some cases. What do you think?
On Tuesday, 6 December 2016 22:41:31 UTC+2, Frédéric Chapoton wrote: > > The new (python3 or six) range is an iterator. You just have to wrap it > with list( ) to get back to the python2 behaviour if needed. > > > Le mardi 6 décembre 2016 17:31:20 UTC+1, Frédéric Chapoton a écrit : >> >> DO NOT TOUCH the import of range from six.moves ! This is part of our >> general move toward python3 ! >> >> And do never use xrange, this is now forbidden. >> >> Frederic >> >> Le mardi 6 décembre 2016 16:26:12 UTC+1, Peleg Michaeli a écrit : >>> >>> I actually think that this is an unwanted behaviour of `six`. >>> >>> Anyway, we may let `Graph` handle xrange lists of neighbours if we want >>> to keep it that way. >>> >>> On Tuesday, 6 December 2016 17:18:29 UTC+2, Peleg Michaeli wrote: >>>> >>>> I have tried to move LollipopGraph into families, but there was a >>>> problem. In families, there's the following import: >>>> >>>> from six.moves import range >>>> >>>> This overrides Python's range. I don't know why. The original >>>> implementation of Lollipop graph uses Python's range, and when it tries to >>>> use the new (six.moves) range it fails (with "This input cannot be turned >>>> into a graph"). >>>> >>>> I can clearly fix this, by setting something like python_range = range >>>> before the six.moves import, but it is not very elegant. I can also use >>>> networkx's implementation of LollipopGraph (as done with BarbellGraph), >>>> but >>>> I am not sure you consider this as the right direction to go. >>>> >>>> What do you think? >>>> >>>> On Wednesday, 30 November 2016 00:40:21 UTC+2, Dima Pasechnik wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tuesday, November 29, 2016 at 4:42:51 PM UTC, Peleg Michaeli wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear list members, >>>>>> >>>>>> I was wondering what really makes the difference between the graph >>>>>> generators in `basic.py` and those in `families.py`. >>>>>> >>>>>> For one concrete example, I was wondering why `LollipopGraph` appears >>>>>> in `basic.py` and `BarbellGraph` appears in `families.py`. These two >>>>>> graphs >>>>>> are very similar. >>>>>> >>>>>> I ask this for a practical reason: I would like to add a couple of >>>>>> graph families, including the Tadpole graph (which is very similar to >>>>>> the >>>>>> Lollipop graph and the Barbell graph) and the Dipole graph (which is one >>>>>> of >>>>>> the simplest multigraphs). >>>>>> >>>>>> What do you think? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I think all of them could go into families.py >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> Peleg. >>>>>> >>>>> -- 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.
