Standard graph API?

[Phil Frost]

+1 for standard graph API!

I don't have a "high-end" use for it, but I did write a program which
graphs the revision history of a software repository. It would have been
nice to have most of that code in a library, and if such a library
existed, it would probably implement operations I was too lazy to
implement, such as coloring.

On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 06:43:35PM +0000, wes weston wrote:
> Magnus Lie Hetland wrote:
> >Is there any interest in a (hypothetical) standard graph API (with
> >'graph' meaning a network, consisting of nodes and edges)? Yes, we
> >have the standard ways of implementing graphs through (e.g.) dicts
> >mapping nodes to neighbor-sets, but if one wants a graph that's
> >implemented in some other way, this may not be the most convenient (or
> >abstract) interface to emulate. It might be nice to have the kind of
> >polymorphic freedom that one has with, e.g, with the DB-API. One could
> >always develop factories or adaptors (such as for PyProtocols) to/from
> >the dict-of-sets version...
> >
> >So, any interest? Or am I just a lone nut in wanting this?
> >
> Magnus,
>    A know I'd appreciate it. It could be used to configure
> neural nets and logic networks; where this api would make
> it easy to build an abstraction then "compile" it into a
> faster representation for execution - or just run the
> tree/graph in "interpreted" mode.
>    I don't think it would get a lot of use, but the use
> would be high end.
> wes
> 
> -- 
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list