Thanks, Glyn, I forgot about the mathematical sense of the word. Thanks for the nice reminder!
Ok, so, if want to apply mathematical reasoning to the dependency problem (and my math is VERY rusty...), it seems that the set of declared dependencies would be irreflexive, since we do not declare a bundle as a dependency of itself. In terms of closure, it would be nice to find some kind of formalism for a closed set, but if x R y and y R z, the set is only closed if z has no other dependencies than x and y, so introducing closure into the equation seems somewhat complicated in practice. Seems that, as you pointed out, at this point intuitive reasoning seems easier than formal reasoning... > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Niclas Hedhman > Sent: 8 September 2006 20:34 > To: General OPS4J > Subject: Re: Transitive dependency > > > On Friday 08 September 2006 18:39, Glyn Normington wrote: > > I'll refrain from expanding the formal mathematical definition as the > > intuitive notion is more important in computing. > > > > A familiar example could be an 'impactedBy' relation defined as the > > reflexive, transitive closure of the 'dependsOn' relation since > a bundle, > > for example, is obviously impacted by changing the things it depends on > > (transitively ;-) ) as well as by changing the bundle itself. > > Ok, I get it... > > Thanks a lot! > Niclas Hedhman > > _______________________________________________ > general mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general > _______________________________________________ general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general
