On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 10:37:34 -0800 (PST) "Edward K. Ream" <[email protected]> wrote:
> As I write this, it would seem natural to adopt the rule that > iterators *never* follow back links. This rule may be too facile. > Consider the common case where A is it's own child. Under the > no-back- links rule, A will not show up in A.child_iter()! This seem > wrong, as I wrote yesterday. I still wonder if it's a path of least resistance, to say that iterators only report backlinks if you ask them to. ( A.child_iter(includeBacklinks=True) ) This just seems to be the way that breaks the least stuff initially. Of course the drawing code would be one of the applications which would ask for backlinks, and it would need to know not to expand them. Seems to me that if iterators hide backlinks by default, then the need for more development in core leo is isolated in the drawing code. Not that that's trivial, but it's better than having to deal with everything at once. 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 [email protected] 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
