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

RE: Tree terminology Question: children vs descendants

From: Kamesh Jayachandran <kamesh_at_collab.net>
Date: 2007-04-14 21:27:23 CEST

>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?

Yes you can change the docstring to 'descendants'. May be the function name to discover_and_merge_decendants.
In real graph theory is it "'B' and 'C' adjacent nodes to 'A'."?

With regards
Kamesh Jayachandran
Received on Sat Apr 14 21:27:39 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.