Am 08.08.20 um 22:51 schrieb James Cook:
>> Why are you so hung up on this tree / cycle thing? What is wrong about
>> your original context addresses and patch (sequence) adresses? If
>> efficiency is the concern, we are talking about a factor of two here.
>> This is irrelevant. For the theory you
> > and whether it's okay to restrict S to be tree-like during the
> > intermediate steps. It is probably simpler to just drop the cycle
> > version and think only of trees, but I want to make sure I understand
> > how the primitive patch theory's commuting rules turn into tree
> > transformations.
