Re: Misclassification of packages; "libs" and "doc" sections
Daniel Burrows wrote:
>
> > What's GL?
>
> OpenGL -- the canonical 3d graphics API.
>
Yea, I know :I. I hadn't understood the reference GL [1], I thought
of it as something else. Wrote a few programs with the old procedural
lib.
No, I don't think you have to do it 3d. There are a lot of
high quality 2d graph layout algorithms. One of the faculty members
here has a Phd in graph layout so we don't have any difficulty in
that. (if we have to display graphs, I mean)
> You can infer this from the above specification. For instance,
> here emacs20 could be defined as:
>
> Packages: emacs20
> .
> .
> .
> Sections: Kitchen_Sink, Development_Tool/Interpreter/Lisp_Interpreter, etc
I'm not talking about packages having multiple sections. But if
you represent sections like that your hierarchy becomes a tree.
Please look carefully, what I depicted is not a tree (in a tree
there is a unique path from every node to a special node called
the root). Arrrgh.
That Development_Tool/Interpreter/Lisp_Interpreter thing implies
that the hierarchy is just a tree. Since paths are unique in trees
you can use a path to refer to nodes where node labels aren't unique.
In a graph, it isn't a usual practice to refer to nodes by
paths. You use only the label which is unique.
> It's pretty easy to look up the correct section and stick it in..
Go and try to do it without representing a graph!
So: No! emacs20 can't be defined like that!
> ack! You're going to hold me to doing what I said? :)
No, just joking. :)
--
Eray (exa) Ozkural
Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara
e-mail: erayo@cs.bilkent.edu.tr
www: http://www.cs.bilkent.edu.tr/~erayo
Reply to: