On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 09:55:20 -0500 "Edward K. Ream" <[email protected]> wrote:
> The great thing about clones is that they are regular part of the > tree. In most respects, nothing special needs to be done to handle > them. > > Creating "special cases" for (alternatives to) clones is not likely > to bring simplification or additional power. I think this is just because the clones are extant and in the core, and the currently hypothetical alternatives aren't. If the core handled a list of links for each node I think the number of places specific code were needed wouldn't be much different from the clone handling code. > Maybe, but clones are also Leo's defining feature. But if you can do everything clones do another way... with lighter weight but potentially fragile links, for example... But in terms of where leo should go next, I'd like to see it go to where it is now, but with qt fully implemented to the level Tk was. :-) > It would be great, Terry, if you could come to Chicago with Kent and > me :-) Thanks - I'd like to, but I have family visiting this year (from overseas) and don't have any spare leave. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
