On 12/13/2009 08:32 AM, anand jeyahar wrote:
> A crucial element in this hypothetical module would be the main graph
> data structure. The simplest approach would be to implement it in pure
> python, with lists, dicts and such, as many libraries do. However, this
> would rule out it
While I agree, I think it's going to be extremely difficult to get any
> kind of buy in without a great deal of support from within python.
> Any devs willing to throw the time required into this?
>
> Geremy Condra
> --
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
>
yep i am interested.
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 3:38 AM, Terry Reedy wrote:
> geremy condra wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
geremy condra wrote:
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. Put
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 10:57 AM, Bearophile 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 whee
On 12/10/2009 01:57 PM, Bearophile wrote:
> Geremy Condra:
>> Well, we all seem to have reinvented the wheel differently ;)
>
> Maybe also because they are designed for different purposes.
This is true. For instance, the data structures and most algorithms in
graph-tool are implemented in C++ to
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 differ
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 7:48 AM, Tiago de Paula Peixoto wrote:
> On 12/08/2009 01:27 PM, Robin Becker wrote:
>> I don't want to sound pessimistic, but graph and digraph theory has a
>> lot of history, especially in computer science. There are already very
>> many implementations eg
>>
>> http://co
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 5:18 AM, Bearophile wrote:
> geremy condra:
>
>> Since that's released under the python license, I'm going to
>> go ahead and commit the version that includes the topo
>> traversal, but if you have any objections you only need to
>> say the word and I'll take it down.
>
> N
On 12/08/2009 01:27 PM, Robin Becker wrote:
> I don't want to sound pessimistic, but graph and digraph theory has a
> lot of history, especially in computer science. There are already very
> many implementations eg
>
> http://code.google.com/p/igraph
> http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/release/libs/gr
geremy condra:
> Since that's released under the python license, I'm going to
> go ahead and commit the version that includes the topo
> traversal, but if you have any objections you only need to
> say the word and I'll take it down.
No objections :-)
Bye,
bearophile
--
http://mail.python.org/m
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 11:09 PM, geremy condra wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 8:59 PM, Bearophile wrote:
>> Robin Becker:
>>
>>> There are already very many implementations eg
>>>
>>> http://code.google.com/p/igraphhttp://www.boost.org/doc/libs/release/libs/graphhttp://ernst-schroeder.uni.lu/Dig
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 8:59 PM, Bearophile wrote:
> Robin Becker:
>
>> There are already very many implementations eg
>>
>> http://code.google.com/p/igraphhttp://www.boost.org/doc/libs/release/libs/graphhttp://ernst-schroeder.uni.lu/Digraph/doc/http://code.google.com/p/python-graphhttp://compbio.w
Robin Becker:
> There are already very many implementations eg
>
> http://code.google.com/p/igraphhttp://www.boost.org/doc/libs/release/libs/graphhttp://ernst-schroeder.uni.lu/Digraph/doc/http://code.google.com/p/python-graphhttp://compbio.washington.edu/~zach/py_graph/doc/html/public/py_graph...
>> Generally, we've tried to discourage people from instantiating
>> nodes and edges directly, in favor of having them controlled
>> through the graph. Maybe something along the lines of:
>>
>> g = Graph(nodes=['a', 'b', 'c'], edges=[('a', 'b'), ('a', 'c'), ('b', 'c')])
>>
>> ?
>
> That would work
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 7:02 PM, Rhodri James
wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 23:42:13 -, geremy condra
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 6:04 PM, Rhodri James
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 03:47:03 -, geremy condra
>>> wrote:
>
g = Graph(
nodes={'a':{'colour':'red'},
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 4:02 PM, Rhodri James wrote:
>
> Here's a thought: are
>
> g.add_edge("a", "b", "ab")
>
> and
>
> g.add_edge("a", "b", name="ab")
>
> equivalent? If so, there's no reason not to have both forms of the
> initialiser. If not, that weighs against having 'name' as a dictiona
geremy condra wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 6:28 PM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
* Graph.__init__ should be able to take a list or set
of nodes and edges as initializer
>>>
>>> The format of this will need to be thought all the way
>>> through before being implemented. To date, we haven't
On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 23:42:13 -, geremy condra
wrote:
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 6:04 PM, Rhodri James
wrote:
On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 03:47:03 -, geremy condra
wrote:
g = Graph(
nodes={'a':{'colour':'red'},
'b':{'colour':'white'},
'c':{'colour':'blue'}},
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 6:04 PM, Rhodri James
wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 03:47:03 -, geremy condra
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 8:42 PM, Rhodri James
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> g = Graph(
>>> nodes=[Node("a", colour="red"),
>>> Node("b", colour="white"),
>>> Node("c", col
On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 03:47:03 -, geremy condra
wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 8:42 PM, Rhodri James
wrote:
g = Graph(
nodes=[Node("a", colour="red"),
Node("b", colour="white"),
Node("c", colour="blue")],
edges=[Edge("a", "b", "ab", weight=2),
Edge("a",
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 8:42 PM, Rhodri James
wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 04:28:05 -, geremy condra
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 6:28 PM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
>
>>> I wasn't thinking of anything clever :-) ...
>>>
>>> g = Graph(
>>> [Node("a"), Node("b"), Node("c")],
>>> [Edg
On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 04:28:05 -, geremy condra
wrote:
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 6:28 PM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
I wasn't thinking of anything clever :-) ...
g = Graph(
[Node("a"), Node("b"), Node("c")],
[Edge(Node("a"), Node("b"), "ab"),
Edge(Node("a"), Node("c"), "ac"),
On Dec 8, 4:27 am, Robin Becker wrote:
> Is there reason to suppose that any one representation of graphs or digraphs
> is
> so good we need to add it to python?
One of them bothered to write a PEP proposing its inclusion?
> Even for fairly common algorithms eg Dijkstra's shortest path there d
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 7:27 AM, Robin Becker wrote:
> geremy condra wrote:
> ...
>>
>> I don't have a problem with adding this if there's a strong desire for it,
>> but at the moment I'm leaning towards a wait-and-see approach, for
>> all the reasons you described.
>>
>> Geremy Condra
>
>
On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 03:06:29 -0500, geremy condra wrote:
[snip 215 lines of quoted-quoted-quoted-quoted-quoted text]
In the future, would you mind trimming the unneeded quoting from your
post? There's no need to duplicate the *entire* conversation in *every*
post, and it is awfully AOL-like of
geremy condra wrote:
...
I don't have a problem with adding this if there's a strong desire for it,
but at the moment I'm leaning towards a wait-and-see approach, for
all the reasons you described.
Geremy Condra
I don't want to sound pessimistic, but graph and digraph theory has a lot
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 11:28 PM, geremy condra wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 6:28 PM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
>> geremy condra wrote:
>>> On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 2:51 PM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
geremy condra wrote:
> How interested are you in a C port of graphine? I haven't had
> any sp
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 6:28 PM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> geremy condra wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 2:51 PM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
>>> geremy condra wrote:
How interested are you in a C port of graphine? I haven't had
any specific requests for it, but if its something you need I
c
geremy condra wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 2:51 PM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
>> geremy condra wrote:
>>> How interested are you in a C port of graphine? I haven't had
>>> any specific requests for it, but if its something you need I
>>> can shuffle it towards the top of the to do pile.
>>
>> There
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 5:48 PM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 17:23:24 -0500, geremy condra wrote:
>
>
>>> * Graph.__iter__ could be mapped to an iterator using
>>> the fastest traversal method for the graph nodes (ie. order does not
>>> matter, it's only important that all nod
On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 17:23:24 -0500, geremy condra wrote:
>> * Graph.__iter__ could be mapped to an iterator using
>> the fastest traversal method for the graph nodes (ie. order does not
>> matter, it's only important that all nodes are found as fast as
>> possible)
>
> Again, it seems amb
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 2:51 PM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> geremy condra wrote:
>> How interested are you in a C port of graphine? I haven't had
>> any specific requests for it, but if its something you need I
>> can shuffle it towards the top of the to do pile.
>
> There are two main reasons for a C
geremy condra wrote:
> How interested are you in a C port of graphine? I haven't had
> any specific requests for it, but if its something you need I
> can shuffle it towards the top of the to do pile.
There are two main reasons for a C implementation:
1. performance
2. memory footprint
These
34 matches
Mail list logo
