On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 4:29 AM, Ville M. Vainio <vivai...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 2:14 AM, Terry Brown<terry_n_br...@yahoo.com> > wrote: > > > What I struggle with is that some attributes should be universal for > > the (t)node in any context, and others only make sense in some contexts. > > For example you might color code the backgrounds of cloned nodes in an > > active task list to indicate urgency. But when you're looking at the > > node in it's "primary" location you don't want to be distracted with > > "why is that one node pink?" type noise. > > (*bump*) I'm beginning to agree that unifying nodes will be clearer. BTW, there is never any such thing as a "primary" location. All clones are exactly equivalent. But to agree with you on your fundamental point: eliminating the distinction between vnodes and tnodes in Leo's core should help. For example, I just now did a little research to determine why clones work in the unified scheme :-) My first thought was that cloned nodes must be distinct in the unified scheme just as they are in the non-unified scheme. The bogus "proof" was that the nodes will have different v.parents entries. In fact, though, p.clone updates v.parents for the node, so cloning a node does *not* create a new node in the unified scheme, but only updates v.parents. So while eliminating the distinction between vnodes and tnodes should help in the long run, it will take me awhile to switch mental gears :-) To me, having tnodes be the unit of sharing is second nature. Edward --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
