Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>:
> The graph tells you that. The only interesting case I could find is the
> negation one - some rules are A conflicts with B which makes the UI side
> much more fun
That's right. This is a CML2 require/prohibit construct. CML1 cannot
express this, and it's essential for side-effect forcing to work. Jeff's
observation about being tempted to introduce a `require' turns out actually
to be equivalent once you see how both problems generalize.
You can't deduce these constraints from graph analysis, because they're
not implicit in the if/then tree structure that is the only thing CML1
knows about.
Jeff and Alan have now almost caught up to where I was two years ago when
I realized the CMl1 formalism was inadequate.
This is going in the FAQ.
-- <a href="http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a> - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Feb 23 2002 - 21:00:11 EST