You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Currently, the nodes specification may take the value auto, indicating that the set of nodes should be implicitly derived from the edge specifications.
Consider making this the default behavior, such that a graph's nodes will be the union of all nodes defined both implicitly (via edge references) or explicitly (in the nodes definition). Nodes defined implicitly will get a data value of null (()).
This may mean that some structures like node arrays may need to robustly handle sparse arrays, so we don't blow up allocation.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
It just occurred to me that if you didn't make auto nodes the default, you could replace the current (and only) LSON keyword auto with a null element for the nodes. Failing that, an empty array.
Didn't realize I'd already thought of this. More convinced than ever to do this. If we do not automatically handle implicitly-defined nodes, then all parsers would need to handle the error of using a node that had not been declared. I don't see much advantage to requiring this.
Currently, the nodes specification may take the value
auto
, indicating that the set of nodes should be implicitly derived from the edge specifications.Consider making this the default behavior, such that a graph's nodes will be the union of all nodes defined both implicitly (via edge references) or explicitly (in the nodes definition). Nodes defined implicitly will get a data value of null (
()
).This may mean that some structures like node arrays may need to robustly handle sparse arrays, so we don't blow up allocation.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: