Re: Aha: no need for a new paste command

The discussion got me to examine the various commands' docstrings via F11. *paste-as-template *was new to me, and might have been handy from time to time. The word "template" doesn't convey anything useful to me about what the command does, but I don't have an alternate to suggest at this mom

Re: Aha: no need for a new paste command

On Sat, Jul 8, 2023 at 6:53 AM Thomas Passin wrote: > No, I haven't tried it. I'm not even sure I would want to. > I've asked several times, why not? Think about how the Windows file explorer works. If you copy a file and > paste it, it gives the pasted file a name that includes "copy" if the

Re: Aha: no need for a new paste command

No, I haven't tried it. I'm not even sure I would want to. Think about how the Windows file explorer works. If you copy a file and paste it, it gives the pasted file a name that includes "copy" if there is another file with that name in the same directory. If there isn't another file in t

Re: Aha: no need for a new paste command

On Fri, Jul 7, 2023 at 9:35 AM Edward K. Ream wrote: I'm not going to [do a state-oriented paste-node]. My apologies. I was too brusque. Thomas, have you tried making paste-retaining-clones your default for ctrl-shift-v? I'm wondering whether you would encounter any problems. Thanks. Edward

Re: Aha: no need for a new paste command

On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 9:35:51 AM UTC-5 Edward K. Ream wrote: > I'm not going to do this...I've closed this PR and am not likely to reopen it. As always, you can write a plugin that makes Leo work exactly as you want. You do not need my permission :-) Note the preread code in the PR. It

Re: Aha: no need for a new paste command

On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 7:55:29 AM UTC-5 Thomas wrote: I got some more clarity about this, and I commented the following on the proposed PR: I can now see that the concept of operation is simple. Within an outline, for a parent-and-subtree: - Ask for a move, get a move; gnxs do not chan

Re: Aha: no need for a new paste command

I got some more clarity about this, and I commented the following on the proposed PR: I can now see that the concept of operation is simple. Within an outline, for a parent-and-subtree: - Ask for a move, get a move; gnxs do not change; - Cut-paste is the same as a move; - Ask for a cop

Re: Aha: no need for a new paste command

On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 3:59:49 AM UTC-5 Edward K. Ream wrote: > I'll leave #3429 open while we continue our discussion. I have assigned this issue to Leo 6.7.5. No way will this issue be part of 6.7.4. Edward -- You received this mes

Re: Aha: no need for a new paste command

On Fri, Jul 7, 2023 at 5:42 AM jkn wrote: > I currently only see command paste-retaining-clones. Is this the command > you are referring to (not paste-node-retaining-clones)? > Yes. I misspelled the name of the command. Edward -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Goo

Re: Aha: no need for a new paste command

I currently only see command paste-retaining-clones. Is this the command you are referring to (not paste-node-retaining-clones)? I presume this is an older command (that I have not knowingly used). I guess I am still ... nervous is not exactly the right word ... about having variants for what I

Aha: no need for a new paste command

#3429 suggests that Leo's paste-node command should retain gnxs if doing so would create no gnx clashes in the pasted node. Thomas, Félix and I have been debating what *anyGnxClashes *should check. Should it check the entire pasted tree