Graphs, Haskell

Graph labels redux and overall plan

This is a continuation of my previous post on my thoughts and plans for writing generic graph classes.

Overall Idea

The overall thing I want to do with these generic graph classes is to be able to deal with the vast majority of graph-like data structures in as common a way as possible. Note that I say graph-like: I’m distinguishing here between data structures that match the mathematic definition of a graph (that is, a collection of distinguished objects, where pairs of these objects may be connected in some fashion) from what is usually considered as a graph data structure: the difference mainly arises in that we have notions of expected operations on graph data structures that may not be applicable on our graph-like data types. These operations can either be ones that are forbidden (e.g. adding a node to a static type) or partially forbidden (e.g. adding a cycle to a tree).

As such, the classes as they currently stand are mainly informational: what can we determine from this graph-like type? Do we know specific properties about it (e.g. is it an instance of the class that specifies whether or not the graph is meant to be directed)? There will, of course, be classes for graph manipulation, but I see those as secondary components: for example, it doesn’t make sense to consider using standard graph manipulation functions to add or delete values from a PackageIndex as we can’t arbitrarily add values to it.

Such a collection of classes will by necessity be subject to compromise: it is not possible to have a fully-featured set of classes that comprehensively covers every single possible type of graph-like data structure whilst also being small and easy enough to use. After all, there’s no point in writing such classes if no-one uses them because they’re too difficult!

More on graph labels

In my previous post, I said that the best way of dealing with labels is similar to the way that FGL currently does: force all graph-like types to have both node and edge labels (but not require types to have kind * -> * -> * like FGL does). A few people objected, notably Sjoerd Visscher said that labels should be optional for both nodes and edges, and ideally be part of the overall node and edge types.

In theory, this solution is great (and I actually worked for a while trying to get something like it to work). However, as I stated in the comments, it fails one notable requirement: we now have to specialise functions on graphs to whether or not the graph has labels or not, and if so which ones. Specifically, if the behaviour of a function may change depending upon whether or not labels are present, such a solution may require four implementations:

  1. No labels;
  2. Node labels only;
  3. Edge labels only;
  4. Node and edge labels.

Probably the best example I can think of for this is from my graphviz library: consider the preview function as it is currently defined for FGL graphs:

preview   :: (Ord el, Graph gr, Labellable nl, Labellable el) => gr nl el -> IO ()
preview g = ign $ forkIO (ign $ runGraphvizCanvas' dg Xlib)
    dg = setDirectedness graphToDot params g
    params = nonClusteredParams { fmtNode = \ (_,l) -> [toLabel l]
                                , fmtEdge = \ (_, _, l) -> [toLabel l]
    ign = (>> return ())

This is a relatively simple function, that just sets some defaults for the main functions in graphviz. To change this to my proposed layout of compulsory labels mainly requires changes to the type signature (the only implementation change would be the way edges are defined). But with optional labels, then either four variants of this function will be required or else the user will have to specify how to distinguish the node/edge identifiers from the labels (if they exist); this latter solution is not satisfactory as the whole point of this function is to provide defaults to quickly visualise a graph, and as such should not take any other parameters apart from the graph itself.

If an “isInstanceOf” function was available (to determine whether or not the graph type is an instance of the appropriate label classes without needing to specify them as explicit type constraints), then this wouldn’t be a problem: implementers of functions would just need to take into account the four possible label groupings in their code. But as it stands, the implementation of having optional labels breaks the simplicity requirement that I’m taking into account when writing these classes.

Note that I would actually prefer to have distinct/abstract node and edge types that optionally contain labels: for the planar graph library that I’m working on all operations on edges are done via unique identifiers rather than a data-type isomorphic to a tuple of node identifiers (so as to avoid problems with multiple edges). However, for most graph types such explicit differentiation between edges won’t be required, and in general it will be simpler to both instantiate and use classes when a more simple edge type is used rather than requiring in effect a new data type for each graph (as required when using data families).

Naming and terminology

One thing I’m still not sure about: how shall I deal with the naming of functions when I have both labelled and unlabelled variants of them? Should I take the FGL route of prepending “lab” to them (e.g. nodes vs labNodes)? I’m not sure I like this solution, as I want to try and shift focus to making the labelled versions the defaults (or at least not as clumsy to use): does it make sense to adopt a policy of priming functions to distinguish between labelled and unlabelled (e.g. nodes vs nodes')? Or should some other naming policy be used?

Graphs, Haskell

Graphs and Labels

As some of you may be aware, I’ve been working on and off on a new library to define what graphs are in Haskell. This is the first part of a series on some of the thought processes involved in trying to define classes that fit the vast majority of graphs.

One of the first things I’ve been considering how to deal with in the new graph classes that I’m working on is how to deal with node and edge labels in graphs. My point of view is that graphs contain two separate but related types of information:

  1. The structure of the graph.
  2. The information explaining what the structure means.

As an example, consider graph colouring: we have the actual structure of the graph and then the colours attached to individual vertices (or edges, depending how you’re doing the colouring). Another example is a flow graph, where the distances/weights are not an actual “physical” part of the graph structure yet nevertheless form an important part of the overall graph.

Yet there are times when the extra labelling/information is an inherent part of the structure: either we are concerning ourselves solely with some graph structural problem (e.g. connected components) or – more commonly when programming – the information about the structure is embedded within the structure (for example, Cabal’s PackageIndex type: this is simplistically equivalent to an unlabelled graph with PackageIndexID as the node type).

As such, I’ve come up with at least three different ways of dealing with graph labels:

  1. A graph can choose whether or not it has node or edge labels (if I understand correctly, this is the approach taken by the Boost Graph Library for C++).
  2. A graph either has no labels or it has both node and edge labels.
  3. All graphs must have both node and edge labels (even if they’re just implicit labels of type ()).

Something along the lines of the first two options is very tempting: there is no requirement to force graphs that don’t have or need labels to pretend to have them just to fit the constraints of some class. Furthermore, different graph types can thus be more specific in terms of which graph classes they are instances of.

However, there is a problem here: duplication. Let us consider a simplified set of graph classes that fit the second criteria:

class Graph g where
  type Node g

  nodes :: g -> [Node g]

  edges :: g -> [Edge g]

type Edge g = (Node g, Node g)

class (Graph g) => LabelledGraph g where
  type NLabel g

  type ELabel g

  labNodes :: g -> [(Node g, NLabel g)]

  labEdges :: g -> [(Edge g, ELabel g)]

So if some graph type wants to be an instance of LabelledGraph, it must specify two ways of getting all of the nodes available (admittedly, it will probably have something along the lines of nodes = map fst labNodes, but wouldn’t it be nice if this could be done automatically?).

But OK, writing a set of classes and then instances for those classes is a one-off cost. Let’s say we accept that cost: the problems don’t stop there. First of all, consider something as simple as adding a node to the graph. There is no way (in general) that the two classifications (labelled and unlabelled) can share in the slightest a method to add a node, etc. Furthermore, this segregation would spread to other aspects of using a graph: almost all algorithms/functions on graphs would thus need to be duplicated (if possible). Since one of the main criteria I have for designing this library is that it should be possible to use graphviz to visualise the PackageIndex type, this kind of split is not something I think would be beneficial.

As such, the only real viable choice is to enforce usage of labels for all graphs. This might be to the detriment of graphs without labels, but I’m planning on adding various functions that let you ignore labels (e.g. a variant of addNode that uses mempty for the graph label, which means it’s usable by graphs that have () as the label type). The distinction between nodes and labNodes above could also be made automatic, with only the latter being a class method and the former being a top-level function.

This solution isn’t perfect: to ensure it works for all suitable graph types, it has to be kind *. But this means that no Functor-like mapping ability will be available, at least without really ugly type signatures (which the current experimental definition uses) at least until superclass constraints become available (or possibly some kind of kind polymorphism, no pun intended). However, this is still the best available solution that I can come up with at this stage.


Test dependencies in Cabal

I’ve previously written about my annoyance with Hackage packages that have compulsory testing dependencies (note that I’ve since modified my position from that post, as noted by the presence of optional testing modules for graphviz). However, the situation is definitely getting better: even my old bugbear hmatrix has made the testing dependencies and modules optional by using a Cabal flag of tests.

However, several package maintainers seem to be unaware of a minor subtlety of how Cabal parses dependencies.

Let us consider a simple example: we have a package foo which is primarily a library but also contains a testing executable which uses QuickCheck. The relevant parts of the .cabal file look something like this:

Flag test
     Description: Build the test suite, including an executable to run it.
     Default: False

    Build-Depends: base == 4.*, containers == 0.3.*
    Exposed-Modules: Data.Foo

Executable foo-tester
    if flag(test)
        Buildable: True
        Buildable: False

    Main-Is: FooTester.hs

    Build-Depends: QuickCheck >= 2.1 && < 2.1.2

So, we have an optional testing executable called foo-tester and bonus points for defaulting the testing of this executable to false.

However, this doesn’t quite behave as expected: if we try to build it as-is without enabling the test flag, then Cabal will still make foo depend upon QuickCheck. Why? Because the dependency is not optional (I’m not saying that this behaviour is correct, just that this is how Cabal acts). This became noticeable when QuickCheck-2.2 came out, I upgraded to it and then ghc-pkg check complained that some packages were now broken.

I’ve pointed out the correct way of doing this to individual maintainers in the past when I noticed it in their packages; now I’m doing it in this blog post in the hope that maintainers of all affected packages will remedy this. To ensure that testing dependencies are only considered when we are indeed building the testing executable, just shift it inside the if-statement:

Executable foo-tester
    if flag(test)
        Buildable: True
        Build-Depends: QuickCheck >= 2.1 && < 2.1.2
        Buildable: False

    Main-Is: FooTester.hs

Now QuickCheck will only be brought in when you’re building tests.

This doesn’t also apply to testing executables, but to any conditional dependencies. See for example how I have testing modules built and exported in graphviz’s .cabal file.

Graphs, Haskell

Results of FGL naming survey

Eleven days ago I set up a survey to help determine what the community thought the new version of FGL that Thomas Bereknyei and I are working on should be called. This post is about the results from this survey.

About the survey

People that took the survey were asked four things:

  • What name did they prefer: “fgl” or “inductive-graphs“;
  • Did they actually do any graph-related programming (not necessarily using FGL);
  • Any other comments they might have had;
  • Optionally, their name and email address.

Response to comments

Several people had some questions/comments regarding the survey both in the survey itself and on the Haskell Reddit. Here are some responses:

  • Why is there only the option of “fgl” and “inductive-graphs”?

    Because we couldn’t think of any better names. The former is what the library is already called, the latter describes exactly what the library is about (implementing and using graphs in an inductive fashion). Any other names such as “boxes-and-arrows” are, we feel, rather silly and don’t make sense. We did ask, but didn’t hear any other names that were relevant.

  • Why should you even consider using the name “fgl” if this is a new library?

    I don’t want to go through the whole thing all over again, but I’ll summarise. This isn’t a completely new library; it’s just a new implementation (e.g. same as going from QuickCheck-1 to QuickCheck-2; the point of the library is the same, the concepts are the same, the implementation is different and the APIs are incompatible). As for the API incompatibility, that’s what version numbers are for.

  • FGL is a silly name anyway/Acronyms are bad in a package name/The word “graph” should appear in the package name/etc.

    Agreed. However, the package name “fgl” already exists, and I don’t believe in gratuitous proliferation of package names on Hackage as its hard enough to navigate as it is. Most people in the Haskell community already know that “fgl” is a graph library, etc. Also see the response to the previous question.

  • You’re the maintainers; why are you bothering to even ask what the name should be?

    Because when we announced our plans, there was a number of vocal people that complained about our “usurpation” (my word, not theirs) of the FGL name for our own library.

  • Why are you planning on using the same module namespace as FGL even if you change the package name? Won’t that cause problems ala mtl and monads-fd?

    Say what you like about the name of the package (I for one agree that it isn’t an ideal name, especially in the world of “modern” Haskell with Hackage, etc.), I think the module namespace is exactly right. And unless we decide to skip the “Data” prefix and just have a stand-alone Graph.* namespace, there isn’t a better namespace available for a package that defines and uses graphs in an inductive fashion. Again, this is a case of “You don’t like it? Fine: pick a better name and if it truly is better we’ll use it.”.

  • If you have to change the API, please provide a compatibility API like Parsec-3 has for Parsec-2.

    This isn’t going to happen for several reasons (and these are just the ones I could think of whilst writing this blog post):

    • Even with the compatibility API, Parsec-3 was slow to be taken up. Admittedly, this was due to a performance regression, but it still doesn’t bode well for how well compatibility APIs fare.
    • Parsec-3 could have a compatibility API because they defined a new module namespace for the new API; we don’t plan or want to do that.
    • If we have a compatibility API now, we’ll be forced to keep using and maintaining it when we’d much prefer people to use the nice new shinier API instead.
    • We plan on providing upgrade paths, such as versions of fgl in the 5.x series that get closer and closer to the new API and various migration guides/tutorials.
    • Most of the function and class names are going to be pretty similar specifically to make porting easier (because of this I’m even planning on using FGL-like terminology for my currently-still-vapourware generic graph library that will eventually provide super-classes for FGL, rather than the more correct graph-theory terminology; e.g. Vertex rather than Node).

    We might have some compatibility APIs to help with the transition process (e.g. the noNodes function is going to be replaced with order, which is the proper terminology, but we might define noNodes as an alias), but these will probably be in a different module and it will still not be possible to have code that will work with both the 5.x series of FGL and the new library.

Survey results

Here is the initial overall results from the survey:

  • 66 people responded (Google Spreadsheets keeps lying to me and claiming 67, but it seems to be counting the header row as an actual response…).
  • 27 (≈ 40.9%) people said they preferred “FGL”; the other 39 (≈59.1%) prefer “inductive-graphs”.
  • 40 (≈ 60.6%) of the respondees said they wrote code dealing with graphs.
  • There were 26 (≈ 39.4%) extra comments.
  • Only 23 (≈ 34.8%) of respondees were brave enough to add their name to the response (and one of these was only a single name without an email address).

If we only consider the 40 people who claimed to write code dealing with graphs, only 16 (≈ 40%) of them preferred FGL; as such, actual usage of fgl or other graph libraries does not seem to change the overall opinion of the community (if my vague recollection of how to do statistics is correct, and this is indeed a representative sample of the community).

Other interesting tidbits

  • Martin Erwig (i.e. he-who-wrote-the-original-version-of-FGL) says we should keep using the name “FGL”, laying to rest potential problems that some people have raised.
  • Two people didn’t seem to get the point of the survey: one person indicated that they didn’t care, another made an unrelated comment regarding immature equines. However, they partially cancelled each other out: the former claimed to write graph code and voted for fgl, the latter said they didn’t write any graph code and voted for inductive-graphs.

In the raw

For those that want it, a sanitised (in that the email addresses and names have been removed) copy of the results is available (I would have hosted them on with the blog, but it doesn’t allow text files to be uploaded, and I don’t see the point of creating a full blown word processor document – since spreadsheets can’t be uploaded – just for some CSV data).

And so the decision is?

Well…. there isn’t one. A 60% preference is too close to even for me to categorically say that the Haskell community prefers one name over another. As such, unless someone presents a really good reason otherwise we’re going to stick with FGL (due to inertia if nothing else).

My take on all this

After all this debate, I’d like to point out that I’m more and more agreeing that “inductive-graphs” would make a much better library name. However, as I’ve stated previously (including above), I would prefer to use the “fgl” name somehow if nothing else because it’s already there (so a few years from now when – hopefully – the new graph libraries are available and widely used, we don’t have a useless library sitting around confusing people, especially when it used to be present in GHC’s extralibs and the Haskell Platform).

Yet Another Compromise Proposal (or two)

However, I just thought of two possible solutions which may be satisfactory to all involved:

What about if we call the library we’re working on “inductive-graphs”, but then create a meta-library called “FGL” that isn’t just limited to inductive graphs? That is, once I’ve worked out my generic graph API library, then we take a large subset of the modules defined in the libraries contained within this figure and re-export them from the FGL library. Such a library would be analogous to how the Haskell Platform is an initial starting point of the libraries available on Hackage: an all-in-one subset of the available graph libraries in one overall API if you don’t know which libraries to use specifically, and you can then pare down your dependencies to what you actually use.

Another alternative (which I find less attractive) is that we make the FGL library contain the generic graph API; this way the library still exists, but then it is completely different from the 5.x series. I’m mainly suggesting this just to provide another alternative; I don’t think it really makes sense or is viable.


Working out the container-classes API

During AusHac, I worked on the container hierarchy I discussed in my previous post, which culminated in the initial release of container-classes. I had initially (and naively) thought I would have been able to whip something like this together on the Friday afternoon and spend the rest of the weekend working on graph libraries; in the end I just managed to release an initial draft version before we had to pack up on Sunday.

Now, I’m not saying this current setup is perfect; it’s basically a direct copy of all list-oriented functions from the Prelude along with a couple of functions from Data.List split into a generic Container class, a Sequence class for containers with a linear structure and Stream for infinite Sequences (i.e. lists and similar structures: those for which it makes sense to define a function like repeat).

First of all, here are a couple of design decisions I made with this library:

  • I want to be able to consider types with kind *; as such, most pre-existing classes are of no use.
  • Even when hacking together support for types of kind * -> * for mapping functions, etc. I couldn’t use Functor as it doesn’t let you constrain the type of the values being stored (for Sets, etc.).
  • To be able to have restrictions, we need to be able to specify the value type as part of the class definition. This means the usage of either MPTCs+fundeps or an Associated Type. I was initially using the latter, but due to the current lack of superclass constraints making the type signatures much uglier and longer, I switched to using MPTCs+fundeps instead.
  • Type signatures should be as short/nice as possible.
  • Provide as many default implementations as possible, and make those as efficient as possible.

However, with these design decisions there are some considerations I have to make:

  • How should I split up the various functions into type-classes? e.g. does it make sense to re-define standard classes like Foldable so that they’ll work with values of kind * (where possible) and if necessary have a constrained value type?
  • At the moment, the main constraints are all inherited from the Container class; if I have lots of smaller classes, is there a nicer way of abstracting out the constraint without duplicating it everywhere? rmonad has the Suitable, but in practice this seems to mean the addition of extra Suitable f a constraints on every function in addition; maybe this is because Suitable isn’t a superclass of the other classes though.
  • I’ve tried to define the default definitions of the various class methods with the eventual goal of implementing and using the foldr/build rule, but I’m not sure how to properly implement such a rule, let alone how well it’s going to work in practice:
    • If someone overrides the defaults to use custom/optimised versions (e.g. all the pre-defined list functions), then the inter-datatype optimisations will no longer be present.
    • As people may use more optimised variants of various class methods, any data type that extends another (using a newtype, etc.) will have to explicitly define each class instance rather than relying on the default definitions (if they want to keep using the optimised variants).
    • Cross-container optimisation could change some fundamental assumptions: e.g. going from a list to a Seq and then back to a list will typically preserve the value ordering; however if we replace the Seq with a Set then we’d expect the ordering in the final list to have changed (and be sorted); if I implement the foldr/build rule would it interfere with this ordering by removing the intermediate Set and the fact that it will insert values in sorted order?
  • Benchmarking: is there a nice way of doing per-class benchmarking to be able to compare the performance of different data structures? For example, being able to compare how long it takes to insert 100 random values into a set (by consing) compared to inserting those same values into a Set.

So, that seems to be the battle I’ve taken upon myself. I’d greatly appreciate any pointers people can give me either as comments here or by emailing me.

Oh, and a reminder: I’m going to stop collecting responses for my survey on what to call the “new FGL” library at about 12 PM UTC this Friday. I’ve already got about 60 votes; more are welcome.

Graphs, Haskell

Data-Oriented Hierarchies

In the Haskell community, there are several topics of discussion that keep coming up over and over again in terms of dealing with the hierarchies in our code. Some of these topics are:

  • Fixing the FunctorApplicativeMonad class hierarchy (however you want to structure it);
  • The best way to define and use monad transformers;
  • Making Functor more relevant; taken to the extreme by the “Caleskell” definitions used by lambdabot on IRC, where it seems almost everything can be expressed in terms of fmap.

Now, I think this kind of discussion is an indication of good health in the Haskell community where we are doing our best to determine what the optimal solution to these problems are (rather than just giving up or being dictated to by a single individual). However, something I’ve come to realise recently is that in my understanding these discussions are mainly oriented at what the best way to abstract how we write code rather than how we use the data structures that make up the code. Hence, the topic of this blog post.

My Goal

What I want to discuss here is the concept of how we can best define class hierarchies that let us easily interchange our data structures. The purpose of this is that currently, if I write some code using a list as my underlying data structure and then decide that a Sequence would be a better fit because I do a lot of appends, I have to re-write every single bit of my code that knows about that particular data structure. However, I would much prefer to just have to change a few top-level type signatures and maybe some list-specific items in my code and then the magic of type classes would take care of the rest.

Avoiding Duplication

The main focus of when such a hierarchy would be useful is when writing libraries: duplication is avoided by having to write a list-specific, a Sequence-specific and a Set-specific version of a function (e.g. to test if the data structure in question has at least two of the provided values). More than that: often times we are constrained in terms of how we use libraries by what data-type the library author preferred at the time of writing. A library function may require and then return a list, whereas we’re using Sets everywhere else. If there is no pressing reason to use a list rather than a Set, then why should it?

Is such a hierarchy already available?

There are some previous attempts at something like this, including (but not limited to):

  • Functor + Foldable + Traversable; this approach can’t deal with structures such as Sets as they require an extra restriction on the parametric type.
  • Edison can cope with Set, etc. and has a nice hierarchy between the individual sub-classes (if anything it has too many sub-classes), but is used by very few packages and has what I consider to be a few warts, such as explicitly re-exporting the data types in question in new modules, and some methods (such as strict) that really belong elsewhere.
  • collections seemed to have been another attempt at this, but never seemed to have built on any version of GHC since 6.8.
  • When you only want to consider structures with a linear structure, ListLike is available. However, it seems to be possibly over-busy.
  • Even more specialised than ListLike is IsString, the point of which is to be able to use string literals in Haskell code to define Bytestrings, etc.

The closest viable class/library to my ideal listed above would be a cross between Edison and ListLike; the former has an actual class hierarchy (to avoid duplication, etc.;) whereas the latter seems to be used more in actual practice.

My point here about a class hierarchy is this: in most aspects, any sequence (or “ListLike” data structure) can be considered a really inefficient generic collection/set: you still want to have a function to test for membership, you want to be able to add values, to know how many there are, etc. As such, definitions should be as high up in the hierarchy as possible to let functions that use them be as generic as possible in terms of their type signatures.

The Joker in the deck

There is one conflicting issue in any such hierarchy: mapping.

Ideally, we wouldn’t want to require that instances of these types have kind * -> * (so that we can for instance [pun not intended] make Bytestring an instance of these classes with a “value type” of Word8). However, as soon as we do that we can no longer specify a map function nicely.

ListLike gets around this by defining a map function that doesn’t constrain the data structure type. This means that it’s possible to write map succ with a type of ByteString -> [Word8]. Whilst this might be handy at times, it also provides possible type-matching problems if your overall definition when using them doesn’t force them to be the same (e.g.: print $ map (*2) [1,2,3,4]), and that in essence this definition of map does a complete fold over the data structure, whereas there may be more efficient versions if we can somehow specify at the type level that it must be constrained to the same data structure.

However, the problem is that technically [Int] and [Char] are two completely separate data types; as such, any map between them will require going from one type to another (since we’re not assuming kind * -> * here). It is possible to get around this, but it’s pretty ugly:

{-# LANGUAGE MultiParamTypeClasses, FunctionalDependencies, FlexibleInstances #-}

class Collection c a | c -> a where
  cons :: a -> c -> c

class (Collection (c a) a) => MappableCollection c a where
  cmap :: (MappableCollection c b) => (a -> b) -> c a -> c b

instance Collection [a] a where
  cons = (:)

instance MappableCollection [] a where
  cmap = map

In essence, the whole point of the MappableCollection class is to force the Collection instance back into having to kind * -> *. It might be better just having Collection use ListLike’s rigidMap and then leave “normal” mapping up to Functor or RFunctor (which works better with the whole “class hierarchy” concept). It’s just a shame that there’s no way of having mapping work regardless of the kind of the data type.

So, what are you going to do about this?

I’m going to make a stab at yet-another-collection-class-hierarchy this weekend at AusHac. I’m not sure how far we’ll get, but I’ll see.

Graph Hierarchies

My interest in data structure hierarchies came out my frustration at the lack of a common reference point for graph data types. Developing a base hierarchy is going to be my main focus at AusHac (the collections classes are aimed at being used within this graph library). My current plans look something like this (note that this doesn’t include extra packages providing specific instances, such as “vector-graph” or something):

That is, the actual “graph” library will also cater for other graph-like data structures, such as Cabal’s PackageIndex type. FGL (both the old and the “new” version, whatever it’ll be called) will then extend these classes to provide the notion of inductive graphs; anything that isn’t directly related to the notion of inductive graphs will be shifted down to this notion of “generic graphs”.

In terms of terminology, to ease the transition I’m probably going to stick to current FGL-nomenclature for the most part (unless there’s something horribly wrong/bad about it). So we’re still going to talk about Nodes rather than Vertices, etc.


As I intimated in the extended announcement for fgl-, apart from bug-fixes we’re not going to work on the current 5.4 branch. The 5.5 branch will be developed so as to use the generic graph classes once I’ve got them sorted out, and then that will probably be the end of it.


Now, this has become a rather hot topic: should a rewrite of FGL still be called FGL? I’ve covered this earlier, but I have now created a survey to try and find out what the community thinks it should be called (I did want an “other” option in the first drop-down menu, but Google Docs wouldn’t let me 😦 ).


Patch-Less Fullerenes

All PhD students at the College of Engineering and Computer Science at ANU (of which I am one) had to submit a poster by today for the annual (for the second year running) HDR poster day (unless they’re busy finishing off their thesis, etc.).

I haven’t actually done any research yet since I’m still doing my literature review, so my poster was on what I will be doing once I’ve finally read enough papers on edge contractions, etc. in graphs. The focus will be on generating fullerenes (or at least the combinatorial representation of them) with a new algorithm that will hopefully be better than the current standard by Brinkmann and Dress which works by stitching together “patches” (hence the cheesy title of my poster). The new approach (which doesn’t seem to have any non-paywall versions available) uses expansion operations to recursively build fullerenes up from smaller ones.

A copy of my poster can be found here. It took me a week to do, but it wasn’t all that bad to have a week’s break from reading papers…

And if anyone is looking for vector image visualisation of a C60 buckyball, the one that I made (since I couldn’t find one and spent a weekend playing with different chemical visualisation tools until I managed to make a decent looking one) here is a PDF version (since WordPress won’t let me upload SVGs; if you want an SVG contact me and I can send it to you, or just import this into Inkscape).