Hi,
thanks for the very useful article.
If I understood everything correctly, there seem to be two typos:
1) The rank of comment "5" is "0000000001-0000000002-0000000005", when first mentioned. In the result, it is listed as "0000000001-0000000002-0000000003", but still showing last. If it would still be listed as "0000000001-0000000002-0000000005", the sorting order would make sense and aireol would be happy. ;-)
2) The last entry of the closure table should be "(0, 6, 4);" instead of "(0, 6, 3);"
Best regards
Hi,
thanks for the very useful article.
If I understood everything correctly, there seem to be two typos:
1) The rank of comment "5" is "0000000001-0000000002-0000000005", when first mentioned. In the result, it is listed as "0000000001-0000000002-0000000003", but still showing last. If it would still be listed as "0000000001-0000000002-0000000005", the sorting order would make sense and aireol would be happy. ;-)
2) The last entry of the closure table should be "(0, 6, 4);" instead of "(0, 6, 3);"
Best regards