On Feb 26, 3:15 pm, derwisch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Therefore, simplifying the node concept in Leo would have me up in arms.
I am so glad you posted this, along with the detailed notes about what
you are wanting to do. In answering your question, I am now more
convinced than ever that unified nodes are a big step forward.
1. The old dual-node scheme was a open invitation to massive confusion
and bad style.
As I understand it, you propose to create clones of data, like this:
- a(1)
- a(2)
And then you distinguish between a(1) and a(2) using
v.unknownAttributes. Imo this is very bad style. You can not be
blamed: the fault is Leo's for giving you two flavors of uA's.
A much better style would be the following. It is based on the
observation that view nodes are *not* clones, they *contain* clones.
So the organization would be:
- trial (summary view)
- common trial data(clone)
- trial view 1
- common trial data (clone)
- data local to trial 1
- trial view 2
- common trial data (clone)
- data local to trial 2
Furthermore, you can create clones of the 'trial view 1' and 'trial
view 2' nodes and put those clones anywhere you like in the outline.
My guess is that this kind of organization gives you much more
flexibility than you had before. You can attach a uA to any of the
nodes, and there will be no need ever to distinguish what the uA
contains based on the location of the node, or whether it is a clone
or not, or on any other criterion except what the node *is*.
So we see that distinguishing between vnodes and tnodes naturally
leads people to *bad* style. This kind of mistake will simply not be
possible to make in the unified node world.
2. Point 1 also shows why I am not enthusiastic about the graph world,
even if some low-level impediments will be removed in the unified-node
world. Indeed, **views do not exist in the graph world**. Or rather,
if they do exist, they will be a contrived combination of hard-to-
understand iters and specialized conventions. Imo, the essence of
understanding and manipulating data is the creation of arbitrarily
many views on the data. This is true regardless of the scale of the
problem: it is true for the human genome project, or for any other
project. No exceptions.
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
