I have posted the relevant code here:
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/7634
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://group
>>> In the end : What is going on with the C graphs in Sage, can we
>>> expect
>>> them to eb available soon ?
>
> You can use them right now. They're just not as feature full.
Actually, that's no longer true. As of the closing of #6085, they are
just as full of features as NX-based Sage graphs. T
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 4:40 AM, William Stein wrote:
> One potential problem is that all the Sage graph theory code is GPL'd,
> but Networkx is now BSD licensed (it used to be GPL'd). Given that
> graph theory in Sage is an area with a lot of possibly unfriendly
> competition with Magma and Mat
On Dec 1, 2009, at 4:45 AM, William Stein wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 5:59 AM, Fernando Perez
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:01 PM, Robert Bradshaw
>> wrote:
>>> I think the basic idea was that one could write a faster (sparse and
>>> dense) graph "core," and then run all the Networ
On Dec 1, 2009, at 2:59 AM, Fernando Perez wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:01 PM, Robert Bradshaw
> wrote:
>> I think the basic idea was that one could write a faster (sparse and
>> dense) graph "core," and then run all the NetworkX algorithms on top
>> of it as long as it supported the interf
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 7:40 AM, William Stein wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 5:59 AM, Fernando Perez wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:01 PM, Robert Bradshaw
>> wrote:
>>> I think the basic idea was that one could write a faster (sparse and
>>> dense) graph "core," and then run all the Networ
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 5:59 AM, Fernando Perez wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:01 PM, Robert Bradshaw
> wrote:
>> I think the basic idea was that one could write a faster (sparse and
>> dense) graph "core," and then run all the NetworkX algorithms on top
>> of it as long as it supported the in
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 5:59 AM, Fernando Perez wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:01 PM, Robert Bradshaw
> wrote:
>> I think the basic idea was that one could write a faster (sparse and
>> dense) graph "core," and then run all the NetworkX algorithms on top
>> of it as long as it supported the in
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:01 PM, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
> I think the basic idea was that one could write a faster (sparse and
> dense) graph "core," and then run all the NetworkX algorithms on top
> of it as long as it supported the interface (for manipulating and
> querying vertices and edges).
On Nov 29, 2009, at 5:22 AM, Minh Nguyen wrote:
> Hi Nathann,
>
> On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 1:57 AM, Nathann Cohen > wrote:
>
>
>
>> If I make no mistake, Robert Miller rewrote the Graph class in C,
>> which sounds like we are trying to remove networkX from Sage and use
>> our own version of graph
Hi Nathann,
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 1:57 AM, Nathann Cohen wrote:
> If I make no mistake, Robert Miller rewrote the Graph class in C,
> which sounds like we are trying to remove networkX from Sage and use
> our own version of graphs instead. If this is the case, we will have a
> C class for gr
Hello everybody !!!
Reviewing patch #7533, Rob Beezer noticed that the Graph function to
compute the distances between all the pairs of vertices in a Graph (
shortest_path_all_pairs(), written in Python ) is much slower than
computing independently the distances between all the pairs of
vertices i
12 matches
Mail list logo
