For your number 4, perhaps it's my lack of expertise. After your reply, I do recall the notion of strong connectivity, so the word "vertex" that I put above does not belong. But, there is a typo still, I think, because it says "connexity" instead of "connectivity". Any way, thanks for making this function in the first place and thanks for continuing to work on it. It makes things really simple when I'm working on stuff and a large portion of what I want is built in.
G-Sage (Oct 09 '11)I just updated the patch at this address : http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/11910. I hope it fixes all the points you addressed ! The other patch I mentionned, 11367, just got reviewed by a colleague today, so only 11910 is left to check. Reviewing a patch is (at first) not trivial, so there is a manual for that just there : http://www.sagemath.org/doc/developer/. If you have any question, you can scream for help on the sage-devel google group or on our IRC channel http://www.sagemath.org/help-irc.html
Nathann (Oct 12 '11)
I retagged according to your last sentence - if you don't like it you can change it back. Currently there are "graph", "graphs" and "graph_theory" tags - perhaps they should all be merged.
parzan (Oct 09 '11)@ parzan I'm a moron. Yea, thanks for doing that. They probably shouldn't be merged. If I think graph, there's the calculus meaning and the graph theory meaning. If my problem has to do with graph theory, I'd probably use graph theory. If I'm talking about the graph of some function, I'd probably use graph.
G-Sage (Oct 09 '11)Oops, I am a moron for thinking that "graph" is only the combinatorist's graph :)
parzan (Oct 09 '11)Maybe neither of us are morons :) Just little mistakes.
G-Sage (Oct 09 '11)