Re: [sage-devel] Reorganisation of graph methods

2010-01-14 Thread Nicolas M. Thiery
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 10:49:55AM -0800, Nick Alexander wrote: > I think I agree with this last sentiment. Why not have a > SetOfCliquesOfGraph object returned by G.cliques(), which is then > further interrogated? Ie, cliques = G.cliques(); > cliques.max_clique(), etc. This worked well with tor

Re: [sage-devel] Reorganisation of graph methods

2010-01-11 Thread Robert Bradshaw
On Jan 11, 2010, at 10:49 AM, Nick Alexander wrote: On 11-Jan-10, at 10:44 AM, Robert Miller wrote: Nathann Cohen wrote: The thing is that we have at the moment something like 210 functions in the Graph class. We can not really keep on adding the new ones without caring about what it is be

Re: [sage-devel] Reorganisation of graph methods

2010-01-11 Thread Craig Citro
>>> Why is that too many? I like being able to type g. and see every >>> single >>> method that is available. If one is interested in trees, >>> g.tree[] >>> gives a smaller subset. Or read the documentation. >> I'm +.9 on this, because I do have one caveat: most of the sage objects with half a mi

Re: [sage-devel] Reorganisation of graph methods

2010-01-11 Thread Nick Alexander
On 11-Jan-10, at 10:44 AM, Robert Miller wrote: Nathann Cohen wrote: The thing is that we have at the moment something like 210 functions in the Graph class. We can not really keep on adding the new ones without caring about what it is becoming. In response, Robert Bradshaw wrote: Why is tha

Re: [sage-devel] Reorganisation of graph methods

2010-01-11 Thread Robert Miller
Nathann Cohen wrote: >> The thing is that we have at the moment something like 210 functions >> in the Graph class. We can not really keep on adding the new ones >> without caring about what it is becoming. In response, Robert Bradshaw wrote: > Why is that too many? I like being able to type g. an

Re: [sage-devel] Reorganisation of graph methods

2010-01-11 Thread Robert Bradshaw
On Jan 10, 2010, at 2:49 AM, Nathann Cohen wrote: This won't work for methods, as the functions in clique won't get a bound self. I.e. you'd have to write sage: g.trees.is_tree(g) unless you did some trickery behind the scenes. Yes, I thought we could replace g.is_trees by g.trees.is_tree

Re: [sage-devel] Reorganisation of graph methods

2010-01-10 Thread Nathann Cohen
> This won't work for methods, as the functions in clique won't get a bound > self. I.e. you'd have to write > > sage: g.trees.is_tree(g) > > unless you did some trickery behind the scenes. Yes, I thought we could replace g.is_trees by g.trees.is_tree > I would actually find this interface less e

Re: [sage-devel] Reorganisation of graph methods

2010-01-10 Thread Robert Bradshaw
On Jan 10, 2010, at 12:15 AM, Nathann Cohen wrote: Hello everybody !!! This is a copy of a mail I sent to Robert Miller, who may require a larger audience :-) --- I was thinking about the huge list of functions we have at the moment in the Graph class, and the length of Graph.p

[sage-devel] Reorganisation of graph methods

2010-01-10 Thread Nathann Cohen
Hello everybody !!! This is a copy of a mail I sent to Robert Miller, who may require a larger audience :-) --- I was thinking about the huge list of functions we have at the moment in the Graph class, and the length of Graph.py. Well, I am at the moment convinced ( if you are no