On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 08:19:19AM +0200, Jori Mäntysalo wrote:
> It is much faster to say sum(1 for _ in graphs.nauty_geng(7)) than sum(1 for
> _ in graphs(7)), and after #19919 we have nauty as a standard package.
>
> Will I break something if I change graphs(n) without any additional
> parameter to use nauty? A user really needing the old code could then say
> graphs(n, property=lambda x: True). I think that Sage documentation makes no
> promise at all about the order in which graphs are generated.
I am all for it. Nauty is sooo much faster. In fact, I'd be glad if
some of Nauty's arguments would be exposed, in particular to generate
acyclic graphs, ...
Cheers,
Nicolas
PS: +1 as well to Graphs(10), in particular to provide an easy access
point for computing the number of graphs using Pólya enumeration. Yes,
we need to settle for a definition of containment, but that should not
be too hard.
--
Nicolas M. Thiéry "Isil" <nthi...@users.sf.net>
http://Nicolas.Thiery.name/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
