[sage-devel] Re: Reorganisation of graph methods

2010-01-11 Thread Jason Grout
Robert Bradshaw wrote: If it's a question of splitting it up into files, this can already be done, and in a much simpler way. cdef class Graph: from clique import max_clique now if max_clique is a function, then this code will make it an ordinary method as if it were defined here. Wel

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Reorganisation of graph methods

2010-01-11 Thread Robert Bradshaw
On Jan 10, 2010, at 3:15 AM, Simon King wrote: Hi Nathann and Robert! I was thinking about the huge list of functions we have at the moment in the Graph class, and the length of Graph.py. I am a bit puzzled: Do you really talk about *functions*? Should there be any function *at all*, excep

[sage-devel] Re: Reorganisation of graph methods

2010-01-11 Thread Jason Grout
Simon King wrote: I wonder if this is a nice feature, though. Imagine you do "g.i" -- should it really return *all* method names that *contain* (rather than start with) an "i"? This wouldn't be helpful, IMHO. This has been discussed before, and one compromise that seems reasonable to me is:

[sage-devel] Re: Reorganisation of graph methods

2010-01-10 Thread Simon King
Hi Nathann and Robert! On 10 Jan., 10:59, Robert Bradshaw wrote: > > I was thinking about the huge list of functions we have at the moment > > in the Graph class, and the length of Graph.py. I am a bit puzzled: Do you really talk about *functions*? Should there be any function *at all*, except f