Hi Doug:

>From dougo@ccs.neu.edu Mon Sep  1 17:30:14 1997
>From: Doug Orleans <dougo@ccs.neu.edu>
>To: Karl Lieberherr <lieber@ccs.neu.edu>
>Cc: dem@ccs.neu.edu, lopes@parc.xerox.com
>Subject: Re: bypassing and only-through
>
>Karl Lieberherr writes:
> > A{
> >   traversal t(V){
> >       {A->* bypassing {->A,f1,*} 
> >             only-through {->A,*,D}
> >       };
> > }                              
>
>Yes, I see how this would be useful; I hadn't thought about using
>wildcards in this way.

So you like Crista's approach where you can have both for the same class.

>
> > PS. I like "only" better than "only-through". "only" is a negative
> > constraint; "only-through" sounds positive.
>
>I still don't understand this, but I guess "only" seems like an
>acceptable abbreviation.

I am concerned that through and only-through will be confused.

>
>I'm tempted to do it this way:
>
>    bypassing complement(-> A,*,D)
>
>i.e. bypass the complement set of A->D, i.e. bypass every edge that
>isn't A->D.
>
>but maybe the double-negative is too confusing... (not to mention it's
>too verbose)

yes, it is verbose. only is an abbreviation for bypassing complement.
>
>--Doug
>

-- Karl