On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 12:49 AM, Ville M. Vainio <[email protected]>wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 11:18 PM, Ville M. Vainio<[email protected]> > wrote: > > > However, we would all be better off if gnx's like this were not a > > special case. It never occured for me why gnx's are not always just > > strings, instead of the tuple it is now - it probably was just for > > compatibility wild old leo's, but strings with no "special meaning" > > are compatible everywhere. scanGnx & friends really should not be > > necessary for anything. > Yes, the old way provided compatibility with old file formats. I don't remember all the details, but let me think out loud. The compatibility issues probably relate to old-style .leo files, not external files. Indeed, external files, of whatever format, must represent gnx's as strings, so scanGnx likely does nothing interesting. .leo files used to be read and written "by hand". It used to be that changing file formats could cause older versions of Leo not to be able to read .leo files written by newer versions of Leo. That problem has largely gone away now that Leo uses sax-based xml read code. Presumably scanGnx was a buffer between various file formats. In short, scanGnx probably can be retired. > However, now it's probably too late in beta stage to change that (some > plugins depend on the behaviour?). Perhaps something for post-release. I agree. We can retire scanGnx early in the Leo 4.7 cycle. Leo 4.6 will guaranteed to be able to read legacy .leo files and we'll have the entire 4.7 cycle to deal with potential incompatibilities. 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
