Re: We need a better term

[James Clark <jjc@jclark.com>]

Attributed hedge is a bit of a mouthful.  How about simply forest?

Murata Makoto wrote:
> 
> James,
> 
> Thanks for your answer.  Before I respond to technical details,
> I would like to talk about terminology.
> 
> > In spec the kind of thing that is matched against a pattern is a pair
> > <a, c> where a is an unordered collection of attributes and c is an
> > ordered collection of children (see section 2 of the spec).  <a1, c1>
> > and <a2, c2> differ only in their character children iff <a1,
> > stripChars(c1)> is equal to <a2, stripChars(c2)> where stripChars(c)
> > returns the members of c that are not characters.
> 
> I have used "hedges" to refer to zero or more trees possiblly prepended,
> interespersed, and followed by characters.  Your <a,c> is more than
> my hedges; it is a hedge together with a collection of attributes.
> 
> You wrote "tree", but it is very misleading.  We need a better term.
> How about "attributed hedge"?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Makoto