On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 9:57 AM, Ryan Hinton <iob...@email.com> wrote: > Incidentally, this is my option (A). I agree it is the cleanest > option. (See my comments on the original thread, <http:// > groups.google.com/group/sage-devel/browse_thread/thread/ > bff3af2a3c77b4b6>.)
I had the impression taht Robert Miller has made an extremely compelling case that this (A) is not a clean option at all.f It is only a good way to duplicate lots of code, maintenance work, etc. -- William > > - Ryan > > On Feb 27, 1:45 pm, Robert Bradshaw <rober...@math.washington.edu> > wrote: >> Perhaps the correct thing to do is have BipartiteGraph wrap a Graph >> rather than descend from it. This way at least one wouldn't ever >> accidently get incorrect answers when calling graph methods that have >> different definitions in the bipartite case (including methods that >> may in the future get added to Graph). >> >> - Robert > > -- > 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://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel > URL: http://www.sagemath.org > -- William Stein Associate Professor of Mathematics University of Washington http://wstein.org -- 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://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
