On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 8:46 AM, Edward K. Ream <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 12:21 PM, Kent Tenney <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > They already are persistent. >> >> Ah, I'd looked at the gnx's for the children of @auto, which >> are new each time the .leo file is opened. >> >> The gnx for the @auto node itself is persistent.
Which is all I'm interested in, no problem here. Previously I had it in my head that the gnx for the @auto node itself was ephemeral, I don't want the automagic child nodes to retain their gnx. > > We are approaching the limit of what can be done. The so-called "hidden > machinery" used in root @thin nodes recreates non-crucial information such > as marks and expansion state. It would be wrong to attempt to recreate > gnx's that way. > > The essence of most important limitations in Leo is the inability to > recreate, with *absolute* reliability, information that crosses files or > versions. Leo can make guesses, but guesses are simply not tolerable where > important data is concerned. > > As a thought experiment, one could imagine creating a duplicate file system > in which all changes to all important files could be tracked. @shadow might > be called one kind of implementation of this. But such a "duplicate" file > system probably is impossible if some people don't use Leo, so we are right > back to using @auto and @shadow, with their various limitations. > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
