Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.
| Related articles |
|---|
| terminology: double-rooted DAG? markh@usai.asiainfo.com (Mark Harrison) (1998-03-03) |
| Re: terminology: double-rooted DAG? mfinney@inmind.com (1998-03-06) |
| Re: terminology: double-rooted DAG? dwight@pentasoft.com (1998-03-06) |
| Re: terminology: double-rooted DAG? vladimir@cs.ualberta.ca (Vladimir Alexiev) (1998-03-07) |
| Re: terminology: double-rooted DAG? markh@usai.asiainfo.com (Mark Harrison) (1998-03-07) |
| Re: terminology: double-rooted DAG? mfinney@inmind.com (1998-03-08) |
| From: | Vladimir Alexiev <vladimir@cs.ualberta.ca> |
| Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
| Date: | 7 Mar 1998 22:41:17 -0500 |
| Organization: | University of Alberta, Computing Science |
| References: | 98-03-021 98-03-042 |
| Keywords: | theory |
| In-reply-to: | mfinney@inmind.com's message of 6 Mar 1998 16:48:42 -0500 |
mfinney@inmind.com writes:
> :>1. It always has a defined root node (like a tree), and
> :>2. There is also a "tail" node
> Its called a "lattice". One of the definitions of a lattice is that it
> is a dag which contains both a least upper bound and greatest lower
> bound -- precisely what you have described.
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.
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...
--
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.