Tables

[Mark S. Miller <mark>]

Date: Sun, 22 Oct 89 00:32:32 PDT
   From: tribble (Eric Dean Tribble)

	 Charming is our (weak) definition of contiguous - ask MarkM or Dean for
	 details, but for all our early purposes, it works just fine.

      Charming is actually stronger than contiguous, in that all charming
      sets are contiguous, but not all contiguous sets are charming.

   ...

   Such that A>B and A>C.  Note that {A,B,C} is charming, but so is
   {B,C}.  

You're correct neither is stronger than the other.  In fact, we have
all four cases.  Charm still seems to be the right notion for runs.
Perhaps a run must be both charming and contiguous?  Charm still also
equals contiguity on full orders.
	
   It gets even stranger when you notice that B and C would be a
   charming pair even if they both had branches.  This is important when
   considering enclosures in a partial order, but it's a little wierd for
   trees.

Not at all.  It means that a run on a tree space is always
representable as a set of mutually disjoint tree-regions (the
"tree-regions" of the 88.2 talk), such that none is a tree-descendant
of any of the others.  Ok, this is a little wierd.  At least it's well
defined.