leepike at gmail.com
Wed Mar 31 07:20:30 EDT 2010
Thanks, Ivan, for the note about the other alternatives and about
possible additions to your library (and of course for the library
I should mention that I completely missed containers in the
hierarchical libraries (I was just looking in the base libraries).
Sorry about that.
On Mar 30, 2010, at 7:23 PM, Ivan Miljenovic wrote:
> Sorry for the duplicate email Lee, but I somehow forgot to CC the
> mailing list :s
> On 31 March 2010 13:12, Lee Pike <leepike at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'd like it if there were a "Data.Graph" in the base libraries with
>> graph-theoretic operations. Is this something that's been discussed?
> I'm kinda working on a replacement to Data.Graph that will provide
> graph-theoretic operations to a variety of graph types.
>> For now, it appears that Graphalyze on Hackage is the most complete
>> for graph analysis; is that right? (I actually usually just want a
>> small subset of its functionality.)
> Yay, someone likes my code! :p
> I've been thinking about splitting off the algorithms section of
> Graphalyze for a while; maybe I should do so now... (though I was
> going to merge it into the above mentioned so-far-mainly-vapourware
> There are a few other alternatives:
> * FGL has a variety of graph operations (but I ended up
> re-implementing a lot of the ones I wanted in Graphalyze because FGL
> returns lists of nodes and I wanted the resulting graphs for things
> like connected components, etc.).
> * The dom-lt library
> * GraphSCC
> * hgal (which is a really atrocious port of nauty that is extremely
> inefficient; I've started work on a replacement)
> * astar (which is "generic" for all graph types since you provide
> functions on the graph as arguments)
> With the exception of FGL, all of these are basically libraries that
> implement one particular algorithm/operation.
> Ivan Lazar Miljenovic
> Ivan.Miljenovic at gmail.com
More information about the Haskell-Cafe