On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 9:24 PM, Edward K. Ream<[email protected]> wrote:
>> But, this causes more lengthy archived positions than what would be
>> usable in xml files (gnx1.gnx2.gnx3...)
>
> Why do we care about the length?
You have to stare at them in xml files (e.g. when reading diffs).
>> currently p.archivedPosition gives 1.2.4. Perhaps it should be changed
>> to give 1.2.4:gnx. That way, resolveArchivedPosition could remain
>> compatible with old archived positions.
>
> Couldn't resolveArchivedPosition be made compatible in either case?
Yes. I was speaking too fast.
>> can still fail if the gnx can't be found in the subtree being scanned
>> (like we fail now when the position can't be found).
>
> Sure. Representation can't make up for truly missing data.
Again, speaking too fast. I meant we should fail if we have 2+ nodes
with same gnx ("in face of ambiguity, resolve the temptation to
guess").
Still - tnode uA's should remain the preferred uA approach.
--
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
