p.gnx is not currently writable, would it be a big deal to make it writeable? If not globally, for @auto tree nodes?
Thanks, Kent On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 7:46 AM, Edward K. Ream <edream...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 6:40 AM, Kent Tenney <kten...@gmail.com> wrote: >> The version I'm developing on is using a back end with a bunch of >> dependencies, but I'll see about simplifying it, Sqlalchemy + sqlite should >> be sufficient. (someone with sql chops could eliminate sqlalchemy) >> >> Dang, I've been testing choices development with regular nodes, but day to >> day I'm always working in <@auto somefile.py> trees, and gnx is ephemeral. >> Maybe a hash of UNL would work for primary key instead of gnx > ... > > Interesting coincidence of several recent trains of thought: > > 1. Recently I removed almost all clones from leoProjects.txt and > leoNotes.txt. You could call it a matter of housekeeping, but I'm > moving towards a workflow in which clones exist only until a project > is done. So they are becoming more ephemeral. > > 2. ArmageDOOM mentioned this link on #leo: > https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7511979 > > One of the comments was that Leo's file format "hadn't taken off". > Without gnx's, Leo's external files would be identical (or nearly so) > with org mode. No, this doesn't really make @auto processing any > easier, because even org mode sentinels will be unacceptable to most > non-Leonine users. > > 3. I recently realized that clones are a bit of a nuisance for > find/change. The more clones I have, the more duplicates there are > when using F3 (find-next) > > For all these reasons, I am beginning to wonder whether clones can > somehow be put a little more behind the scenes. > > To be sure, clones (vnodes) are likely always to exist as a basic > capability, but if clones can be made just slightly more "ephemeral" > then gnx's might not be needed in external files. For example, I > wonder whether my work flow could be based on a combination of Terry's > bookmarks and (perhaps) automatically generated (and thus more > ephemeral) clones. > > In this context, your comments about hashing the UNL fits right into > the zeitgeist. Bookmarks are, iirc, just unl's... > > In short, this could be an important new direction for Leo. No, we > aren't going to get rid of clones. No, we aren't going to get rid of > sentinels. But there might be important benefits if we can convert > sentinels to org-mode format, and if we can make clones more of the > plumbing than the porcelain (to use git terminology). > > In short, it looks like you are leading the way again, Kent. > > Edward > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "leo-editor" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
