On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 10:01:16 -0500 "Edward K. Ream" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So the (non-urgent) issue I see is how could cyclic graphs be > > included in a Leo outline that was mostly DAG, in some way that Leo > > knows that from this node and beyond cycles may occur. > > I said previously that limiting the expansion of nodes is a good first > step. We could also have directives that limit expansion to n number > of visits. But I remain skeptical that the kind of graph you show > really is worth viewing in an outline. Right, general graphs really need to be seen in a general graph interface. Single (or n) step expansion is probably a sufficient way for editing them in a tree when you want to do that. > It seems seems more than > plausible that representing graphs in a Leo tree is all that is > needed. No need to argue further until the unified node world is > much farther along. Perhaps somebody will produce a plugin that will > show the true power of general graphs :-) I'll certainly give it a shot. The problem with the graphed plugin was that it lacked integration with the rest of leo, which is inevitable for things that use the decode from tree / encode to tree representation approach. With these new data structures I think it's more practical to switch between DAG and general views of the same data without that separation. The only requirement is that DAG mode somehow know when to beware of cycles. But as you say, let's get the rest of it working first. Cheers -Terry --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
