On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 06:19:37 -0700 (PDT) derwisch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > That was my first thought too. But two clones can share the same > > parent. > > Ouch. That's where the DAG analogue breaks, or even the analogue with > graphs in general. Didn't think of that. > > In order to maintain the analogy, would it be possible to disallow > "identical twins", so to say? Obviously this would mean getting rid of > the Clone Node function and having "Paste node as clone" as the normal > way of producing clones. Ah, now I understand the "two clones can share the same parent" bit, I didn't get it until now. But is there anything, in the most general of generalized graphs, that says you can't have two links between nodes? It seems unified node world could just have B appear in A's children list twice. Obviously there a limited reasons for doing this, basically to support the usually transient state created by the Clone Node function, and maybe to make an entry visible at two places in a long list. But I don't see how it's a problem - it's working now, basically. I think it's a shame unified node world isn't happening, because I don't think the v/tnode system has any advantages and I think the v/tnode system is much less intuitive. Of course, if we get a sane p.stack and vnodes get parents and children iterators that yield other vnodes we're basically there, is that how things are going to fall out? Cheers -Terry --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
