Hi Boaz:

a useful concept during adaptive programming is:
non-recursive paths from A to B:

Is the following the correct strategy?

A.B ^ !(A . at-least-one-edge (a1#A + b1#B) . at-least-one-edge B)

-- Karl
PS. ! is not. Can you handle negation efficiently (through interpretation
of the traversal graph using tokens)?
From boaz@ccs.neu.edu Wed Jun 11 23:24:08 1997
Received: from taboor.ccs.neu.edu (boaz@taboor.ccs.neu.edu [129.10.112.115])
	by amber.ccs.neu.edu (8.8.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id XAA05012
	for <lieber@ccs.neu.edu>; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 23:24:06 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 23:24:06 -0400 (EDT)
From: Boaz Patt-Shamir <boaz@ccs.neu.edu>
To: Karl Lieberherr <lieber@ccs.neu.edu>
Subject: Re: non-recursive paths
In-Reply-To: <199706120203.WAA00377@stockberg.ccs.neu.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.95.970611231835.20801A-100000@taboor.ccs.neu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: R

> 
> a useful concept during adaptive programming is:
> non-recursive paths from A to B:
> 
> Is the following the correct strategy?
> 
> A.B * !(A . at-least-one-edge (a1#A + b1#B) . at-least-one-edge B)
> 
> -- Karl
> PS. ! is not. Can you handle negation efficiently (through interpretation
> of the traversal graph using tokens)?
> 
our only tool for negation is the bypassing clause, or its bigger brother
the edge predicate. I would write the non-recursive A to B as
"from A, bypassing A, to-stop B".