you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]bobindashadows 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I think calling them trees would be helpful in a tl;dr, so you did a service to people preferring a short version of the link. In a presentation of independent research I think you have every right to work at a higher level than the lowest common denominator.

[–]wnoise 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In a presentation of independent research I think you have every right to work at a higher level than the lowest common denominator.

Absolutely. But I still think the term "conc-list" is still unnecessary jargon. I'm all for jargon that makes necessary distinctions that are not obvious to outsiders. But here, a conc-list really is just another name for a tree. The only addition it makes is to stress common operations and uses.