>>> Perhaps it would be wise, before writing such statements, to ensure 
>>> that your own tool reaches at least an equivalent quality ;-)
>>
>> Well, thus far my tool has succeeded in not putting nodes on top of 
>> each other, and so their labels are at least readable. That's an 
>> improvement, if only a small one.
> 
> Except I have no such problem with dot...
> 
> Example:
> 
> digraph "" {
> node [shape=ellipse, color=lightblue, style=filled, fontname="Times-Bold"]
> p1 [label="1"];
> p2 [label="2"];
> p3 [label="3"];
> p4 [label="4"];
> p5 [label="5"];
> p6 [label="6"];
> p7 [label="7"];
> p8 [label="8"];
> p9 [label="9"];
> 
> edge [color=black]
> p1 -> p2
> p1 -> p3
> p1 -> p4
> p3 -> p5
> p3 -> p6
> p3 -> p7
> p7 -> p8
> p7 -> p9
> edge [color=red]
> p7 -> p1
> }
> 
> gives the image attached. Probably not the most terse way since I 
> adapted it from a computer-generated dot file.
> 
> What's wrong?

That's interesting. I never managed to get a result to look that nice. 
(Although a little AA certainly wouldn't hurt!)

What happens if you try it with this?

digraph ""
{
   n1 [label="fib"]
   n2 [label="(:)"]
   n3 [label="1"]
   n4 [label="(:)"]
   n5 [label="1"]
   n6 [label="zipWith"]
   n7 [label="(+)"]
   n8 [label="tail"]

   n1 -> n2
   n2 -> n3
   n2 -> n4
   n4 -> n5
   n4 -> n6
   n6 -> n7
   n6 -> n2
   n6 -> n8
   n8 -> n2
}

I eventually managed to get this to look half reasonable with my own 
tool, but still not great.

Post a reply to this message