On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 1:22 AM, Ville M. Vainio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 3:22 AM, Edward K. Ream <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > Aside: the present position is represented by a series of child > > indices, like 0.3.4. This scheme is unaffected by this discussion. > > Why not use gnx's as indices? gnx1.gnx2.gnx3. It would only > malfunction when a tnode is cloned in a sibling node, and has a better > chance of surviving when you update a .leo file from version control. One of last year's aha's was that such indices have *no* chance of surviving outside the context of a particular outline. Change the outline and all such indices become invalid. In the context of this discussion, gnx's add nothing. In other words, there is *no such thing* as a "permanent" position; there are only "remembered" positions. In practice, only the presently selected position ever needs to be remembered this way. There are mechanisms in place to generate "remembered" positions, but it's rare that they are needed. Edward --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
