Re: Ev2 using move-away and move-here
From: Julian Foad <julianfoad_at_btopenworld.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 14:29:58 +0100 (BST)
Branko Čibej wrote:
It does? I don't see how. You're saying that keeping track of whether there are mismatches in a sequence such as this (which swaps siblings A and B):
is so much easier than with a corresponding non-explicit sequence which could be
? Assuming an implementation whereby the receiver keep a list of nodes that are currently in temporary storage, I can see that the list will be shorter with the former protocol, and have fewer insertions and deletions, but that's all.
> Regarding direct move without intermediate state, IMO the driver should be
That would necessitate us defining "whenever it can" algorithmically. For example, calculating the minimum possible number of direct moves required to perform a given set of moves. That seems difficult. Granted the Ev2 design philosophy includes being minimal (no duplications) in general... but I just don't see this particular rule being easy to codify. Perhaps we can do it.
> Driver always has enough info to know that receiver can process such a move. If
Yup, agreed there.
This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.