Re: "Documentation by paper"

[kaih at khms dot westfalen dot de (Kai Henningsen)]

law@redhat.com  wrote on 09.02.04 in <200402091627.i19GRE1F022341@speedy.slc.redhat.com>:

> In message <92K5FmlXw-B@khms.westfalen.de>, Kai Henningsen writes:
>  >law@redhat.com  wrote on 03.02.04 in
>  ><200402031634.i13GYTa3019190@speedy.slc. redhat.com>:
>  >
>  >> In message <10402031550.AA21796@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu>, Richard Kenner
>  >> writes How is that relevant?  Dominators are discussed in several texts
>  >> one can read, including, but not limited to Morgan, Muchnick, Appel,
>  >> Aho, etc. Dominators actually pre-date your decade-ago compiler course.
>  >> Pick up a book and do a little reading :-)
>  >
>  >Hmmm ... are they in the Dragon book? I certainly don't recall them, but
>  >then it's been a while since I last looked in there.
> Yup.  I went back and double checked before making that statement.
>
>  >> At some point you have to assume a base level of knowledge for your
>  >> reader.  Are we going to define CFG in every file which uses the CFG?
>  >> Are we going to define the basic properties of SSA in every
>  >> file which uses that form?
>  >
>  >Ever heard of this thing called a "glossary"? Needn't be in every file
>  >either. How about - daring idea - it gets put into a file called, oh,
>  >"glossary.texi"?
> But again, why bother when there are already things like wikipedia and
> numerous texts which already define these basic terms.  Other folks have
> already defined these basic terms, probably in better verbage than we'd come
> up with.  Why recreate the wheel?

Because those aren't part of gcc.

And because by your argument, nobody would ever need a glossary. Which is  
obviously absurd, so your argument cannot be right.

MfG Kai