On Thu, 2 Jul 2020 at 08:32, Ben Franksen <ben.frank...@online.de> wrote: > > Definition: A /patch sequence address/ is a tuple > > (a, b, (Qi), (nj), X, Y), where a and b are (primitive) contexts, (Qi) > > is a sequence of (primitive) patches going from a to b, nj is a sequence > > of unique names of patches in (Qi), and X and Y are a partition of the > > remaining names in (Qi). [...] > > > Definition: Two minimal patch sequence addresses are /equivalent/ if all > > their properties are the same except possibly the patch sequences (Qi), > > and those two patch sequences are permutations of each other that can be > > achieved in the primitive patch theory. > > Does that mean (a, b, (Pi), (nj), X, Y) and (a, b, (Qi), (mj), X, Y) are > not equivalent if (nj) and (mj) consist of the same set of names but in > a different order? If so, it may be worthwhile to say that explicitly.
Right, the order has to be the same. Updated: https://hub.darcs.net/falsifian/misc-pub/patch/e4da914113bae54b38eab83be71ad9e38cddaf09 It would also be reasonable to let (nj) be a set instead of a sequence, so order doesn't matter, and call it a patch *set* address. I think the merge-permute-separate procedure in Chapter 5 could be revised to use a patch set address in place of a patch sequence address. I guess the desired new order of the patches would become a parameter of Step 3 (separation), and Step 2 would disappear. James _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list darcs-users@osuosl.org https://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
