On Dec 7, 6:56 pm, Robert Miller <r...@rlmiller.org> wrote: > I'm not sure it is a good idea to *remove* the methods from the object > of which they are a natural function. I've seen this argument many > times before, and I really like this as an organizing method. > Everything else you say seems like a good idea to me: improving the > documentation, having the actual implementations in their own module, > cleaning up source code, making it all more accessible. > > I think you can accomplish all these goals without "unbloating" > graphs. I think Sage users have gotten used to (please feel free to > correct me on this, Sage users!) looking for a method via tab > completion.
10-20 methods, OK. But 200 methods via tab completion? The latter is largely usless. It screams for a restructuring... > I worry about how many features we have for graphs already > which I have seen users surprised to find. Cleaning up documentation > might make more people more aware of what Sage can do, but I think > moving these methods (at least in name) out of the graph classes would > be a push in the other direction. > > -- > Robert L. Millerhttp://www.rlmiller.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
