On Wed, Jan 08, 2020 at 08:40:26AM -0500, Derrick Stolee wrote: > > Hmm. Your description and your diagrams make sense to me. But one > > curious thing is that the earlier test you added for 6_* does not need > > modified. Because it continues to show: > > > > | | | | * 6_F > > | |_|_|/| > > |/| | |/ > > | | |/| > > | |/| | > > | * | | 6_D > > > > rather than adding a horizontal component to the second-parent line. > > That seems inconsistent. > > The issue here is that there is not enough room for a second horizontal > line. The horizontal line can only start after the previous has completely > terminated, that is > > | | | | * 6_F > | |_|_|/| > |/| | |/ > > at this point, the first horizontal line has terminated. Ahhh, OK, that makes perfect sense. I didn't quite realize how the rules for "going horizontal" worked. > If there was one more row to the example, then we would have: > > | | | | | * 6_F > | |_|_|_|/| > |/| | | |/ > | | |_|/| > | |/| | | > | * | | | 6_D Right, that makes sense. Thanks for explaining. And the patch otherwise looked good to me; your explanation convinced me that this is the right thing to do. -Peff
