On Sun, 2004-08-22 at 18:04, David R. Baird wrote:
>
> I'm not 100% sure of the Tree:: bit (although it is based on a tree
> structure), but I can't see where else it could fit in.
>
> d.
Are the arboreal aspects important to the use of the tool or are they
implementation details? Could you change it to use a hash or a
SQL server without altering the interface? Ifyou did, would it make
said arbitrary back-end appear treelike?
--
david nicol
"Someday, everything's going to be different
when I paint my masterpiece."
