This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: [PATCH] Postinstall script ordering in setup - take 3
- From: Igor Pechtchanski <pechtcha at cs dot nyu dot edu>
- To: Robert Collins <rbcollins at cygwin dot com>
- Cc: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com
- Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 15:33:50 -0500 (EST)
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Postinstall script ordering in setup - take 3
- Reply-to: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com
On 17 Mar 2003, Robert Collins wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-03-17 at 07:13, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> > > And for clarity: my suggested tweak is also not sufficient to provide a
> > > weak ordering.
> > > Rob
> > Rob,
> > Your suggested tweak provides a total ordering. The "unordered(x,y)"
> > [!(x < y) && !(y < x)] relation is false for any x != y [since either
> > (x < y) or (y < x) always holds].
> For my example, yes. The problem is when you introduce z.
> > So all equivalence classes have one
> > element: "unordered(x,x)" is always true. You get transitivity trivially,
> > as "unordered(x,y) && unordered(y,z)" is only true if x == y == z, and
> > then you also have "unordered(x,z)".
> But: we break the ordering transitivity.
> > Transitivity
> > x < y and y < z implies x < z 
> y:= foo: gam
> x:= gam
> z:= bar: foo
> both our operators give
> x < y && y < z && !x < z
> (dep) (dep) (alpha)
> which isn't transitive.
Umm, I already replied to that in
<http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-03/msg00504.html>, but I'll repeat
My operator< *is* transitive, because of the "propagateDependences"
So is yours (since you only changed mine). Neither is transitive without
that step. FYI, I couldn't think of a better (linear complexity) way of
providing transitivity. Suggestions welcome.
|\ _,,,---,,_ pechtcha at cs dot nyu dot edu
ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ igor at watson dot ibm dot com
|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Igor Pechtchanski
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-. Meow!
Oh, boy, virtual memory! Now I'm gonna make myself a really *big* RAMdisk!