Vitalije,
On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 5:41 PM vitalije wrote:
> Well I didn't tried too hard to make it more readable. It can be improved.
>
Ok, after looking at it some more, I see that the vnode tree structure
involves only a list of children and a list of parents (one parent for each
clone).
> I'm finding the vnode code harder to read, but if it works better then it
> is better :-). However, is it better because you are the one who wrote it
> instead of me :-), or because it is easier to avoid mistakes using vnodes?
>
Well I didn't tried too hard to make it more readable. It
Thanks vitalije for noticing the position error. I wonder why it only gave
an error on redo and not also for the original operation.
Thanks for the vnode-based code. Based on a quick test, it seems better
than my position based code as I haven't seen any errors on undo/redo.
I'm finding the
Well after `one_clone = one.clone()`, position `three` becomes invalid,
because `one.clone()` inserts cloned node above the node `three`. If you
add:
three._childIndex += 1
after `one_clone = one.clone()`, there will be no error after executing
script.
If I were you I would make all tree
Thanks, vitalije. The else part of the 'if 1:' was my failed attempt to
further simplify the failing case.
The error is happening when the code does: insert, clone, move the clone to
the first child of node="two" (which already has one child named "three"),
undo, redo.
I though I might also
In the first case after `if 1:`
you have called two times child.copy().moveToNext().moveToNext(), while in
the else case you have called it only once.
I have tried with one call in both cases and it works without error.
Vitalije
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
In the code I've been writing, there is one particular case which gives an
"invalid position" error when I redo it. I've written some simplified code
which replicates the scenario (even removing the grouped undo allows the
issue to duplicate).
The code performs 3 individually undoable operations:
