Adds sage.graphs.base.graph_backend to the documentation

[nathanncohen]

As the title says ! This patch does nothing smart.

Nathann

---

Apply to devel/sage: attachment: trac_14805.patch

Component: graph theory

Author: Nathann Cohen

Reviewer: Punarbasu Purkayastha

Merged: sage-5.12.beta0

Issue created by migration from https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/14805

[ppurka]

comment:3

Patchbot says "mmmm... tasty but can't digest; need rebase."

Edit: That's evil. You upload a new patch in the few seconds while I write. X-(

[nathanncohen]

comment:4

Sorrysorry I just did ! ;-)

Nathann

[ppurka]

comment:5

Can you add the following:

1. After every description iterator, add what it is an iterator of. In some cases it is clearly mentioned, whereas in other cases it is simply left as iterator.
2. There are some INPUT descriptions like this: - ``new`` -- boolean or None or - ``new`` -- string or None . I think it should be explicitly mentioned that None corresponds to retrieving the current value. In fact, I am very surprised how it works. The function definition should be like the definition below so that G.loops() gives the value straightaway, without having to enter None as a function argument:

def loops(self, new=None):

It is a painful and extensive cleanup of that file. Thanks for the effort. :)

[ppurka]

comment:6

3. There is this sentence which needs spaces around the =, otherwise the rendered output is weird.

81	        If ``name``=``None``, the new vertex name is returned, ``None`` otherwise.

784	        If ``name``=``None``, the new vertex name is returned. ``None`` otherwise.

4. This needs a double backticks; currently it is rendered in latex

201	            label of `(u,v)`

5. It applied with one hunk at fuzz 2 against 5.11.beta3.

[nathanncohen]

comment:7

Hellooooooo !

I just updated the patch (sorry for the delay, I had some problems with Sage because of #14737), and fixed all your points.

Except point 4, where I removed the backticks instead of adding them : the whole file is full of (u,v) without backticks, and to me marking them with double backticks makes less sense than writing them as LaTeX characters. To me an edge is a math thing.

Well, what do you think ? We can make it Python, Maths, or let it stay like that too :-)

Nathann

[ppurka]

comment:8

Only one correction to suggest. In the correction to point 2, the `None` should not be under single backticks. I am ok with removing the backticks from (u,v).

[ppurka]

comment:9

Oh sorry. there is another one of the point 2 type.

1362	        - ``new`` -- string or None 

[nathanncohen]

comment:10

Gloops. Right. Patch updated !

Nathann

[ppurka]

Reviewer: Punarbasu Purkayastha

[ppurka]

comment:11

Attachment: trac_14805.patch.gz

Thanks. Looks good to me. :)

[nathanncohen]

comment:12

Thanks for the review :-)

Nathann

[ppurka]

comment:13

Why is the patchbot unable to apply to 5.11b3? I applied to 5.11b3 and it worked except for the fuzz.

[nathanncohen]

comment:14

It is probably an old version. The one I uploaded when you quoted the patchbot, yesterday.

Nathann

[ppurka]

comment:15

Let's kick the patchbot.

Apply trac_14805.patch

[nathanncohen]

comment:16

Underfed, then kicked.

We really should treat it better.

Nathann

[ppurka]

comment:17

Replying to @nathanncohen:

Underfed, then kicked.

We really should treat it better.

Nathann

"C'est la vie" :-P

[nathanncohen]

comment:18

"C'est la vie" :-P

In life you have to kick back if people treat you like that :-P

Nathann

[jdemeyer]

Merged: sage-5.12.beta0