GW>CB>When you are talking about dung, what difference does it make what
GW>CB>animal it came from.  It's still going to smell the same.
GW>Quite a lot, quanitity for one thing :-)
... Well, I have to admit, I wouldn't want to clean up from an
elephant with a poodle's pooper scooper!
GW>CB>And, no, it's not a new family.
GW>We'll have agree to disagree here. I think it is, and I don't think I'll
GW>convince you to change you view.
Nope.  As long as you can trace the relationship / history, I really
can't see how you or anyone else can call it a new algorithm, with a
straight face.
At best, you can only call it a variation.
GW>CB>A _NEW_ family means it's not a simple, incredibly minor modification 
o
GW>CB>another family.  They may not be the exact same algorithm, but they are
GW>CB>definitely related and in the same family.  When you can make a change
GW>CB>that minor, it doesn't instantly become a new algorithm.
GW>But straight insertion and straight selection sort have identical loop
GW>structures, does that make them the same?
Can you trace their operation / existence _directly_ from another
algorithm or each other?  If you can, then they are related and you are
dealing with variations.  See my message to David Noon about applying
biological classification techniques to algorithms.
--- QScan/PCB v1.19b / 01-0162
---------------