3 ms·
I like this thought but note that it would no longer technically be a DAG if you allowed editing earlier comments to link to later comments.
by senkora 2y ago
I like this thought but note that it would no longer technically be a DAG if you allowed editing earlier comments to link to later comments.
- James_K 2y agoThis is easy to solve by representing edits as amendments. Each edit forms a new "reply" node in the graph with the amended content.
- readyman 2y agoOr each edit forms a new "edit" node that new replies are then connected to. Regardless, the DAG can always be preserved somehow.
- stevage 2y agoOoh, interesting - so it's clear that the B responded to A, not to A'. And your DAG ends up A'->B->A (where -> means responds to). OTOH I'm not sure that cycles are even a huge problem.
- James_K 2y agoThey probably aren't a problem, but they might be. I can see there potentially being some graph theory optimisations on the server side you can do if you know you're dealing with a DAG. > And your DAG ends up A'->B->A A' would be in response to A.
- basil-rash 2y agoYou could edit a comment to violate the DAG criterion, but not every edit that references a prior node must result in violation of the DAG. Those edits which would result in a violation should be prohibited.