Graphviz #644
Graphviz #644
Conversation
|
TODO:
|
james-d-mitchell
added
major
james-d-mitchell
force-pushed
the
graphviz
branch
10 times, most recently
from
b35efd9 to
d4b6e10
Compare
james-d-mitchell
force-pushed
the
graphviz
branch
5 times, most recently
from
19fe156 to
5416f88
Compare
|
The CI will likely fail here until: is merged. |
james-d-mitchell
added
the
gap-days-brussels-2025
|
This might be a bit much for this week, but maybe not. |
james-d-mitchell
removed
the
gap-days-brussels-2025
james-d-mitchell
force-pushed
the
graphviz
branch
from
5416f88 to
a236436
Compare
| @@ -0,0 +1,27 @@ | |||
| <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This file is autogenerated and is listed in .gitignore and should not be included in the repo.
| <#GAPDoc Label="GraphvizVertexLabelledDigraph"> | ||
| <ManSection> | ||
| <Attr Name="GraphvizVertexLabelledDigraph" Arg="D"/> | ||
| <Attr Name="GraphvizVertexLabelledGraph" Arg="D"/> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sweet, I was wishing we had such a function already yesterday.
| <Description> | ||
| These functions produce &graphviz; objects representing the digraph | ||
| <A>D</A>, where the vertices in the list <A>verts</A>, and edges | ||
| between them, are drawn with color <A>color1</A> and all other vertices |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In the text of the Digraphs manual, we sometimes use the US spelling color and sometimes we use the British spelling colour. I suggest we standardise at some point.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This file can be removed, presumably it's just a vestige?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This file can be removed, presumably it's just a vestige?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why is this file part of this PR? Should it be a separate one?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This stuff looks nice so far, although it's obviously got a few TODOs etc, but this should eventually be its own PR too.
This is a reworking of #639, which goes a bit further than #639 in removing the old stuff for displays. This PR doesn't introduce any breaking changes except that we now require the
graphvizpackage. So this PR shouldn't be merged until there is a release of `graphviz'.