|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
>>> 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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |