Alan Cox <email@example.com>:
> > CML2 is aimed at this. It will never be perfect -- perfection would require
> > a full theorem prover -- but it's already good enough to handle normal
> > ancestry relationships.
> Our relationships are heirarchical so you can build a dependancy graph and
> then recursively backtrack to find the dependancies.
Yeah, but it's a DAG rather than a tree. There are other things that
complexify it, too. Like the difference between "suppress dependant"
and "suppress" -- sometimes ancestor symbols affect the valid range
of a symbol, sometimes they don't.
Consider the case where you fail a contraint while backtracking. It's
not obvious what the right policy is -- I've identified at least four
possibilities and I can think of circumstances where each one is right
and the other three wrong.
I certainly don't have all the answers. But I'm trying to get us to
a place where we can explore the questions without tripping over our
own damn feet.
-- <a href="http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr">Eric S. Raymond</a>
"The bearing of arms is the essential medium through which the individual asserts both his social power and his participation in politics as a responsible moral being..." -- J.G.A. Pocock, describing the beliefs of the founders of the U.S.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 31 2000 - 21:00:17 EST