|terminology: double-rooted DAG? firstname.lastname@example.org (Mark Harrison) (1998-03-03)|
|Re: terminology: double-rooted DAG? email@example.com (1998-03-06)|
|Re: terminology: double-rooted DAG? firstname.lastname@example.org (1998-03-06)|
|Re: terminology: double-rooted DAG? email@example.com (Vladimir Alexiev) (1998-03-07)|
|Re: terminology: double-rooted DAG? firstname.lastname@example.org (Mark Harrison) (1998-03-07)|
|Re: terminology: double-rooted DAG? email@example.com (1998-03-08)|
|Date:||8 Mar 1998 12:09:06 -0500|
|Organization:||In Mind, Inc.|
|References:||98-03-021 98-03-042 98-03-071|
>> Its called a "lattice". One of the definitions of a lattice is that it
Vladimir Alexiev <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>No, because he never stated that his DAG is to be interpreted as a
>partial order. In other words, a DAG is not necessarily transitive,
>and we don't know if transitive edges are assumed, either.
Also, see my "retraction".
>The correct answer is: who cares :-) Now, if he had asked about some
>algorithms that might be applicable to some problem on such a
>structure, it would matter...
I care. As does the original poster. Finding good names for structures
and classes is one of the hardest things to do. Anywhere prior use has
established a name, that use should be respected unless it is really off
the mark. The problem of naming is really severe, I have worn out
several copies of "Roget's International Thesaurus" in persuit of good
names. (BTW, it is the *only* thesaurus which is worth using for
this purpose -- all of the other ones seem to "convenient dictionary"
formats which are essentially useless for that type of research).
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.