Author pablogsal
Recipients belopolsky, christian.heimes, eric.smith, gdr@garethrees.org, martin.panter, pablogsal, remi.lapeyre, rhettinger, terry.reedy, tshepang
Date 2019-01-18.18:36:12
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1547836572.31.0.973363123622.issue17005@roundup.psfhosted.org>
In-reply-to
Content
> 1. The name "topsort" is most naturally parsed as "top sort" which could be misinterpreted (as a sort that puts items on top in some way). If the name must be abbreviated then "toposort" would be better.


I totally agree that `topsort` is a bad name, I used it more or less as a dummy for starting the discussion about the implementation.

> 2. "Topological sort" is a terrible name: the analogy with topological graph theory is (i) unlikely to be helpful to anyone; and (ii) not quite right. I know that the name is widely used in computing, but a name incorporating "linearize" or "linear order" or "total order" would be much clearer.


Topological sort (not as the function name) but as an operation is a very well known concept and is well defined. If you are referring to not use "Topological Sort" in the docstrings or the documentation, I strongly oppose.


Regarding the interface, I am more happy to change it once there is an agreement. I am still awaiting Raymond's comments regarding this so we can start discussing.
History
Date User Action Args
2019-01-18 18:36:13pablogsalsetrecipients: + pablogsal, rhettinger, terry.reedy, belopolsky, eric.smith, christian.heimes, tshepang, gdr@garethrees.org, martin.panter, remi.lapeyre
2019-01-18 18:36:12pablogsalsetmessageid: <1547836572.31.0.973363123622.issue17005@roundup.psfhosted.org>
2019-01-18 18:36:12pablogsallinkissue17005 messages
2019-01-18 18:36:12pablogsalcreate