On 31 Jul 2002, Johan Danielsson wrote:

> Lennart Augustsson <lennart@augustsson.net> writes:
>
> > I'm not really sure if it's correct.  It works for me.
>
> I suppose it might break if you have multiple bridges.
>
> > I guess a safer way would be to gradually increase the subordinate
> > value down a path as you find more and more bridges below.
>
> You must walk the whole tree, and then fix the subs on your way
> up. Isn't there code that does this already?

Right. All you need is a depth-first search, and you're covered.

I'm puzzled why there is so much concern over this. ??

Take care,

Bill