I was referring to jaspervdj, who is both the author of the comment to which I reply and the author of the original article (well, I presume).
The article states: "an element in array can, by chance, point to an element in marks, but this won’t matter since the element in marks won’t point back, and so we can determine it’s fake." This sentence is missing the part where the counter is made use of, and as such is erroneous. The mentioned element can point back, and its index must be compared with the counter to ascertain whether it is valid.
Although that is a small omission, it is in no way trivial, and probably the source of all the confused comments the posting received.
OK, I missed the coincidence (by which I mean they are identical, not that it's by chance) or the names of the authors. That clears up my confusion on that point.
Regarding the lack of mention of the counter in the section of the description you mention, I thought it was obvious. In the section before he says: we keep the number of marks set. That means, to me, that if the element in array accidentally/incidentally points to an element in marks that accidentally/incidentally points back, it's not counted as pointing back because it's known (by using the counter) not to be valid.
It is subtle, I agree, but for me the explanation is clear enough already. Adding more detail could simply overwhelm the reader with words, without letting the reader see the wood for the trees.
I agree, now that you've expanded it, that your point is valid, but I, personally, prefer the version as it is.
In this I expect we should simply agree to disagree. One person's "necessary detail" is another's "pointless nit-picking."
Comments
I was referring to jaspervdj, who is both the author of the comment to which I reply and the author of the original article (well, I presume).
The article states: "an element in array can, by chance, point to an element in marks, but this won’t matter since the element in marks won’t point back, and so we can determine it’s fake." This sentence is missing the part where the counter is made use of, and as such is erroneous. The mentioned element can point back, and its index must be compared with the counter to ascertain whether it is valid.
Although that is a small omission, it is in no way trivial, and probably the source of all the confused comments the posting received.
OK, I missed the coincidence (by which I mean they are identical, not that it's by chance) or the names of the authors. That clears up my confusion on that point.
Regarding the lack of mention of the counter in the section of the description you mention, I thought it was obvious. In the section before he says: we keep the number of marks set. That means, to me, that if the element in array accidentally/incidentally points to an element in marks that accidentally/incidentally points back, it's not counted as pointing back because it's known (by using the counter) not to be valid.
It is subtle, I agree, but for me the explanation is clear enough already. Adding more detail could simply overwhelm the reader with words, without letting the reader see the wood for the trees.
I agree, now that you've expanded it, that your point is valid, but I, personally, prefer the version as it is.
In this I expect we should simply agree to disagree. One person's "necessary detail" is another's "pointless nit-picking."