Hi, David.Well... It's mainly the same thing. I don't know why, but I didn't see the "new" binary encoding before.
The trouble is, in both cases, to decide whether some subtree occurs multiple times. This could be archived (of course), but to automatically find that representation is possibly costly. (I know, that's not mandatory.)
We need to make some experiments on how much time generating an 'optimally compressed' representation takes.
Nevertheless, adding support for the "new" binary encoding, I will. Best Regards, Peter On 12.02.2009, at 17:01, David Carlisle wrote:
Peter,How does this compare with the existing sharing mechanisms in the binaryencoding? http://www.openmath.org/standard/om20-2004-06-30/omstd20html-3.xml#sec_sharing_references whic was intended to mirror the OMR reference element http://www.openmath.org/standard/om20-2004-06-30/omstd20html-3.xml#sec_sharing_bvars David
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Om mailing list [email protected] http://openmath.org/mailman/listinfo/om
