clp
What is the point of a special function `seq_numeric()`? Isn't it simpler to replace `seq(1, x)` with `seq_len(x)`?
I also wonder: how bad is it if we omit the test `index_is_natural_sequence()`? How likely is it that the test does indeed pass?
A thought: avoid seq() in any case.
I tried `make_ring(1E5)`. Optimization saves ca. 50%, 3.72ms v.s. 6.42ms.
I wonder if there is a rounding problem in R base? See the example below. ``` set.seed(2024) n
In R vectors are one-based. The "-1" in the plot and point statement should be omitted. To eliminate the y value warnings, replace 0 in dd1, dd2 by a value...
Maelle, Is there a compelling reason why this error would not occur?
Note that function `d0()` in ``` g9
The solution is to add `diag=TRUE` in `upper.tri()` and `lower.tri()` except the one after `g9` in the code. This will eliminate the warnings.
My preference `is_complete()` as in: ``` is_acyclic is_bipartite is_chordal is_connected is_dag is_degseq is_directed is_forest is_graphical is_hierarchical is_igraph is_isomorphic_to is_matching is_max_matching is_min_separator is_named is_printer_callback is_separator is_simple is_subgraph_isomorphic_to is_tree is_weighted ```