Tamás Nepusz

Edge list remapped to get rid of isolates (49 becomes 0, 50 becomes 1, 55 becomes 2): ``` 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 1 1 2 0...

Added a test case; not included in the test suite yet until we find a fix for it.

> Given that the directedness might not make much sense here, could perhaps support for direction be removed? Or are there good reasons for keeping it? It is one of...

Was there any progress regarding the licensing of InfoMAP? As far as I know it's still AGPL, isn't it? Also, nothing stops us from adding an `igraph_community_infomap_new()` function instead of...

Use two separate functions. This is an implementation detail that most users do not (and do not want to) care about. Adding an extra argument is API-breaking and it forces...

> I would not call it an implementation detail though It's not an implementation detail from _our_ perspective as library maintainers, but for the ordinary end user that just needs...

> wouldn't address the core issue, which is that micro-managing this is difficult Note that with this we would simply be trading the micro-management of `RNG_BEGIN()` and `RNG_END()` calls with...

Ah okay, this seems to make more sense to me. So, basically, all functions would be assumed to call the RNG at one point or another, unless explicitly specified otherwise...

> I'm guessing that the labels must be running around in circles indefinitely. As far as I know this is a possibility when the labels are updated synchronously, but an...

There are two concerns with the current label propagation implementation: 1. It is not interruptible at all -- I think we should simply place an `IGRAPH_ALLOW_INTERRUPTION()` call in every 1000...