Re: [stack] function "adjoinment"?

jn wrote:-
> The only goal of a programming language, despite popular
> opinion nowadays, is not to convey ideas to other programmers.

This is a confirmation of my claim that english is a crappy language.
A main goal of mine/us IS to convey ideas to other programmers;
usually ourselves - later. Power from parallel processing is of
little interest to me these days.

]> how should I comprehend "share inputs" ?
]   This was explained in the link I posted:
] http://johnnowak.com/heap/vis.txt

No I don't think it needs explaining. IMO our words are wrong.
Ad-libbing it now [for practice] since you've omitted the diagram:
if the stages are 'in-series' so that output(N) connects to
input(N+1) [as is conventional] then "output(N) and input(N+1)"
could be said to be "common".

If input(N+1) is independent of output(N) then parallel processing
is possible. In fact (N), (N+1) ordering does NOT exist.

The concepts are very simple and clear  -- also from your diagrams.
Once you start using words, you've got to define eg. "share inputs",
which is more of an electrical-engineering idea ?

== Chris Glur.