There is some duplication in the IPPM code, stemming from it's original design against the API. This means that some graphing code, and some classes which define hexels, spikes, pairings, etc, are similar, and could probably be consolidated. Also, I (@caiw) get a little confused when reading through how the graphs datastructure is currently built and traversed (it's not wrong or bad, I just wonder if it could be more intuitively defined).
Low priority, but I've been wondering about combining it into a networkx.DiGraph, perhaps whose nodes are literal Transform objects (see #65).
There is some duplication in the IPPM code, stemming from it's original design against the API. This means that some graphing code, and some classes which define hexels, spikes, pairings, etc, are similar, and could probably be consolidated. Also, I (@caiw) get a little confused when reading through how the graphs datastructure is currently built and traversed (it's not wrong or bad, I just wonder if it could be more intuitively defined).
Low priority, but I've been wondering about combining it into a
networkx.DiGraph
, perhaps whose nodes are literalTransform
objects (see #65).We can discuss pros and cons on this issue.