Anonymous user
Talk:Topological sort/Extracted top item: Difference between revisions
Talk:Topological sort/Extracted top item (view source)
Revision as of 13:04, 20 May 2021
, 3 years agoadded a TOC.
mNo edit summary |
m (added a TOC.) |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
__TOC__
==Reasons for draft status==
I think it is worthwhile as this task extracts and orders just those items necessary to compile a given top level whereas [[Topological sort]] would order everything. Hopefully you do too? --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 19:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
: This seems like a variation on a theme. But I have to ask if my current J implementation satisfies your intent for what you wanted displayed? (If not, could you update the task description with whatever additional requirements?) --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] 16:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Line 27 ⟶ 30:
:Ok, I have added "top level support" for J. However, I could not see any way to make this result relevant to the compile order, and it was quite simple to implement without reference to my dependency structure (the <code>depends</code> value), so I implemented it as an independent word. --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] 18:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
== Python output ==
Isn't it actually wrong? --[[User:Ledrug|Ledrug]] 01:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
:What is wrong with it? The task allows for some variation in which items are compiled in which pass. And a quick glance did not show any missing dependencies nor did I spot any files which were compiled before their dependencies were compiled. --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] 20:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
::Yeah ok. I was wondering why its output is different. The C and J answers decide compile level of an item by how many levels of items it depends on, while Python code decides on how far away it is from the top level item. The former compiles an item as soon as possible, the latter is the opposite, but both are fine in resolving dependencies. --[[User:Ledrug|Ledrug]] 21:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
| |||