[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Elliotte Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu> writes:
>
> Hunsberger, Peter wrote:
>
>
> > I don't get the distinction. As soon as you've got a graph
> you've got
> > a tree (or perhaps many trees).
> >
>
> Not necessarily. All trees are graphs but not all graphs are
> trees. For
> instance a pure tree can't represent a cycle but a graph can.
> XML's rule
> that a node can only have one parent is not a limit of graphs
> in general.
Yes, I was trying to say that a tree is a subset of a graph, you snipped
the context:
> A more important question, which gets to the heart of the matter, is
> who decides what is a graph, what is a tree, and by what
> means do they
> make the interpretation?
Why do you care about having tree's if you've got a graph?
|
