On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 8:28 PM, Edward K. Ream <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am dubious about using id(it) as a hash. When the tree is changing > it would be so easy to refer to something that looks like a tree item > but isn't because it has been deallocated. Boom. > > Presumably id(it) was used as a hash because tree items aren't > hashable. I'll check this soon... Nope. I did it because I thought there was a dict lookup problem, while there really wasn't. Ie it was a misunderstanding on my part. > Also, deleting a tree isn't as easy as item.takeChildren: the > leoTkTree dictionaries must be updated or further chaos will happen. In case they aren't updated automatically when you re-create the child tree, they can be updated iterating through the old tree normally. > I haven't given up, but this is turning into a project. Yeah, so it may be better to focus on other stuff for a second (choosing the right lexer for nodes, etc). The current performance is not a usability-killer anyway. -- Ville M. Vainio http://tinyurl.com/vainio --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
