From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 17:02:05 GMT
Subject: Re: Isn't "dangling" a misnomer?
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0702261801010.22628@wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de>
In-Reply-To: <3c6c07c20702260835v4865ace1u18a20f6b1d0030b5@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007, Mike Coleman wrote:

> I've been reading and rereading the git documentation and tripping 
> slightly over the word "dangling", as in "dangling object".  In 
> traditional use, one might talk of a dangling pointer A, where A points 
> to B and B is destroyed/invalidated/etc.  As a literal example, A might 
> be a machine address like 0x8808FEFE, which points to an area of memory 
> that once had a particular meaning, but now does not, leaving the 
> pointer "dangling".

Think of the history as a large tree with branches. If a branch is 
dangling, it is about to be pruned.

Ciao,
Dscho