Tim Peters <t...@python.org> added the comment:
>> the meanings of "predecessor" and "successor" are >> universally agreed upon > I disagree. I can post literally hundreds of citations that all agree: in u -> v, u is a direct predecessor of v, and v is a direct successor of u. Here's one: http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~vernon/cs367/notes/13.GRAPH.html Here's another from a Python context: https://networkx.org/documentation/stable/reference/classes/generated/networkx.DiGraph.predecessors.html """ A predecessor of n is a node m such that there exists a directed edge from m to n. """ On & on & on. Hence my "universal". Can you link to any that disagree? As to the meaning of "point to", in "u -> v" it's obvious that the arrow points _from_ u _to_ v. I very strongly doubt you can find a credible source disputing that either. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue46071> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
