On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 10:57 AM, Ville M. Vainio <[email protected]>wrote:
> > I know unified nodes have been "tried" previously (though I don't know > the exact results of the experiment). The experiments works. Surprisingly, however, it turns out that it doesn't much matter. > > I think it might be cool to move forward with this after the release. > It should get rid of lots of contortions in the codebase, and most > importantly, the vnodes really are not necessary in any sense to > represent clones (i.e. it's just one new layer that can get broken). > Moving to the unified nodes should simplify leo's conceptual model > significantly, and eliminate the need to use positions for everything. > As opposed to positions, tnodes Actually, the distinction between vnode and tnode can be useful. I'm not going to remove the distinction between vnodes and tnodes in Leo's core at any time in the foreseeable future. > - Have identity (gnx) > - Can be cached The problem with unified nodes is that they are, well, unified. All clones *are* the same node. That means that if you mark one (v)node, you must mark them all: their position within the outline no longer matters. I personally think this is a minor issue. Using or not using unified nodes just can't make a big difference. In contrast, providing different viewers for the body pane (or trees) would make a big difference. Imagine viewers for general graphs, html, movies, etc. 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
