On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 4:07 PM, Ville M. Vainio <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 12:02 AM, Edward K. Ream<[email protected]> > wrote: > > > But the essence of the situation is that, relatively speaking, *almost > > no code* will have to change to make the one-node world a reality. In > > this sense, the recent discussion of the relative merits of positions > > vs. vnodes should be moot. The relationship between positions and > > Yes, this is a separate "api improvement" that can be done at later > date. It's by no means a requirement for the whole thing to happen. > > It should be just about enabling the "unified nodes" flag and > debugging it well. I tried it a while ago, and it didn't work with > clones properly (no clone icons). Interesting. I wasn't aware that there was any problems. But I can believe that there are. However, my plan is to do considerably more than what is implied by the unified nodes flag. The new vision is that the iterators would be special cases of general graph iterators. That is, I would like them to work in cases were arbitrary back links are allowed. It seems to me that the new vision (all clones are *exactly* the same node) cries out for this approach. I've begun preliminary explorations about what will have to change. It won't be a trivial project, but I think it is worth doing. Besides, it interesting :-) 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
