provide alias number_of_connected_components

[mantepse]

fix #40935 for connected_components

as with #40939: we have to decide whether this does not pollute the name space too much.

[github-actions]

Documentation preview for this PR (built with commit d65857a; changes) is ready! 🎉
This preview will update shortly after each push to this PR.

[mantepse]

Maybe this should really be n_components. @dcoudert, is there a good reason to include connected in the name?

(cf #40917, but also consider W.number_of_irreducible_components)

I just see num_components in knots/knotinfo.py and number_of_components in knots/link.py.

[dcoudert]

it is important to keep components to distinguish between connected, biconnected, triconnected etc. components.

[dcoudert]

a serious drawback of this change is that it makes it less intuitive for users to get the list of methods related to connected components. Currently, g.connected_component<TAB> gives a list of methods. So we should at least keep the aliases.

[mantepse]

There is absolutely no question whether we should keep the old names. They must stay, in my opinion.

The only question is whether adding aliases is worth it.

[dcoudert]

I'm not sure of the added value of this change. it does not help unifying the name of similar methods for biconnected or triconnected components. The name connected_components_number is quite clear I think.

[mantepse]

Yes, the only issue is consistency with the rest of sage, where we try to promote n_xxx or number_of_xxx now. Currently biconnected or triconnected does not appear in the sage codebase.

[dcoudert]

I understand the consistency issue.

For bi/tricconnected components, we are missing some methods. I will propose a PR for the number of bi/tri connected components.

[dcoudert]

Ok, let's go. LGTM.