On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 1:25 PM, Ville M. Vainio <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 9:20 PM, thyrsus<[email protected]> wrote: > > > Currently, when one clones an expanded node, the cloned node is shown > > as unexpanded; thus expanded/unexpanded is an attribute that may be > > distinct between clones. There are likely others, though I'm not > > But currently, this only has effect at the level of immediate clone - > the subtrees of the clones are identical. Therefore, the benefit/value > of vnodes (as opposed to one-node world) is mostly illusory > (deceptively so). I agree. This is the argument that tips the balance in favor of having a single node for all instances of a node. BTW, I got a small surprise earlier. It turns out that the vnodeList is a useful optimization: p.findAllPotentiallyDirtyNodes uses this list. So instead of refcounts, I'll keep on using v.vnodeList or v.parents--I don't understand the difference at present. If so, the task becomes, in essence, simply making the unified_nodes code to work. (It apparently does not, at present). The task is not entirely trivial: at present only a single reference to any node ever resides in v.vnodeList or v.parents. That must change. This is actually pretty good progress. Maybe a few more hours work will suffice. 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
