From: Jeremy Siek (jsiek_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-30 20:32:27
On Wednesday, October 29, 2003, at 08:31 PM, Vladimir Prus wrote:
> That's good. However, I think that the test can be simplified.
> Consider the
> following (pseudo)code.
> for i in vertices(g)
> for j in vertices(g)
> bool tc_has_edge;
> tie(..., tc_has_edge) = edge(i, j, tc);
> bool should_have_edge = is_reachable(i, j, g)
> if (tc_has_edge != should_have_edge)
> return false;
> I believe it's equivivalent to the current test.
Yes, that is nicer.
> Also, there's still a problem with is_reachable(i, i), which always
> true -- I'm not sure how real it is, yet.
Ok, I think I can solve that...
> Also if I remove
> if (components[component_number[*i]].size() == 1)
> check from my new code, the test still passes. Revision 1.2 did not
> The reason is that the new code only cares if there's edge in
> closure, but allows 2 parallel edges -- that's precisely what the "if"
> statement tries to avoid. How can we test for this problem?
I just checked in a new version of the test that tries to solve this.
> Great! The only nit is that the code now have tabs. I've removed them
> in *.w
> source, maybe I'll commit the change and you'll regenerate hpp?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk