On Jul 6, 11:56 am, "Edward K. Ream" <[email protected]> wrote:
> It is looking like very few changes will be needed to make the one- > node scheme work: > In particular, the all-important p.moveToX methods should remain > unchanged. A subtle point has just now become clear to me: the p.moveToX methods (the foundation of all Leo's iterators) would have to be revised extensively to work in the graph world. But as I have said before, Leo's core is probably never going to support the general graph world, so there is no need to try to "reinterpret" what, say, threadNext means in the graph world. With this caveat in place, the work to be done should be straightforward. Edward P.S. The "reinterpretation" of p.moveToThreadNext for the general graph world would be non-trivial. For example, every test of the threadNext code would have to be "expanded" to test whether a link has already been followed. Equivalently, methods like p.hasNext() would have to test whether p.next() has already been visited (in a particular generation). The new code would be tricky to get exactly right, so it's good there is no need for it. EKR --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
