[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Deconstructing Star-Merge
From: |
Jason McCarty |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Deconstructing Star-Merge |
Date: |
Wed, 22 Sep 2004 19:20:03 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.4i |
Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Jason McCarty:
>
> >> === Patchlogs and Revisions ===
> >>
> >> There is a relation of equivalence between Patchlogs and Revisions.
> >>
> >> patchlogOf: Revision --> Patchlog
> >> revisionOf: PatchLog --> Revision
> >>
> >> patchlogOf(R) = L <=> revisionOf(L) = R
> >
> > I would be careful with wording here, as "relation of equivalence" could
> > be confused with "equivalence relation," which this isn't. To prevent
> > confusion with your other use of "<=>" I would call this an order-
> > preserving bijection, and use "R ~ L" to mean "R = revisionOf(L)"
> > (equivalently "L = patchlogOf(R)").
>
> Huh? I read the line question as "patchlogOf(R) = L holds if and only
> if revisionOf(L) = R".
The above line is fine. I'm referring to the line further down:
If R <=> L, then versionOf(L) = versionOf(R)
and suggesting to use ~ here instead of <=>, to prevent confusion.
--
Jason McCarty <address@hidden>