Re: Module naming and identification

On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 6:00 PM, Mark Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
> [...] Since the range of all the clists of
> module editions within the same cycle will be the same, a more compact
> representation is possible.

I'm wrong. All module editions within the same cycle have the same
transitive dependencies, but not the same direct dependencies. The
clist of a linked module edition contains entries only for the
module's direct dependencies. So this minor optimization opportunity
isn't valid and can be ignored.

-- 
Text by me above is hereby placed in the public domain

    Cheers,
    --MarkM