[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Tree terminology Question: children vs descendants

From: Paul Burba <pburba_at_collab.net>
Date: 2007-04-14 17:49:11 CEST

While working on merge-tracking these last few weeks a question on tree
terminology came up:

In this tree:

| |
| |___
| | |

When we talk about A's children do we mean B,C,D,E,F or only B and C?

In the doc string for functions like discover_and_merge_children() we
use "child" to mean the former, i.e. all descendants of A.

But the stricter mathematical/CS definition as I understand it is the
latter, i.e. only nodes connected by one edge.

Is it best to describe B and C as "immediate children" as is done in
svn_depth_t to avoid confusion? Is there a "real" graph theory term to
describe B and C?

Paul B.

P.S. Remember, children are our future! :-P

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Apr 14 17:49:50 2007

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.