"Documentation by paper"

[law@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?

jeff