Re: [PATCH] DFS fix.

[Michael Hayes <m dot hayes at elec dot canterbury dot ac dot nz>]

Michael Matz writes:

Hi Michael

 > It does. But nevertheless this does not indicate, that it is the DFS
 > number (the order in which the nodes are first visited). The node first
 > visited has DFS number 0 (because it is first visited), but also "reversed
 > completion" number 0. The reverse completion number (compnum) is "number
 > of nodes - compnum", with compnum the order, in which the nodes are
 > leaved. As the first node visited is the last one leaved, it has compnum
 > number_of_nodes-1, which, when reversed is 0.

OK, I understand.  Thanks for the good explanation.  I'll tweak the
code to make it more rigorous and less ambiguous. 

Checking with Appel's book, it appears that he also uses DFS num for
reverse completion number; I suppose since the latter is the more
useful quantity, naming usage is slack.

Michael.