Talk:Use-define chain
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article seems really heavy on the algorithm and really light on explanatory text. My inclination is to remove most of the algorithm stuff and replace it with a short explanation of the fact that use-define chains are used by compilers in optimizing code, and also as tools for human debuggers. Opinions?
Leonard Lcuff 17:22, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
- That would make a not so useful article even more useless. I'm wading through most artices in Category:Computer science and this one is on my to be rewritten list, so I suggest keeping it as it is. --R.Koot 18:58, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
-
- I would tend to agree with R.Koot. The algorithms are fine; they just need some explanation. In general, I've learned that deleting is the last resort. It's sort of like, "If you don't have something better to say, leave it alone" unless it's clearly wrong or utter nonsense. --KSnortum 03:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
I am familiar with CompSci but this is a little outside my experience, so I tried to only deal with formatting and clarity. Hopefully I didn't change the meaning.
"Consider now the sequential execution of the list of statements s(i) and consider that we observe the computation at statement j" This is such a clunky sentence. Hopefully what I changed it to is clearer without being inaccurate: "Consider the sequential execution of the list of statements s(i) and what we now observe as the computation at statement j"
The headings "Setup" and "Execution" are mine and very artificial. I just thought the article needed at least two headings. "Setup" should probably be changed; it's the best I could think of.
The statement "A(i) is a simple but powerful concept..." is parenthetical, so I put it in parentheses. Still, I don't like the format. Maybe a footnote.
--KSnortum 16:56, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Merge
I would agree on the merge. It seems on is heavy on technical explanations and the other is more on how and why def-chains are used. I would like to see the second one cleaned up more, though. The language is very informal. --KSnortum 02:07, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
