On 7 Jul., 12:30, "Edward K. Ream" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 1:50 AM, derwisch <
>
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 4, 10:51 pm, "Edward K. Ream" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > [...]
>
> > > I think we will all be better off without the tnode/vnode
> > > distinction.
>
> > From a graph theoretic point of view, tnodes model vertices and vnodes
> > model edges.
>
> In the one-node world, vnodes model nodes, and v.children models the
> (directed) links from v to its children. This is a far simpler (and thus
> far better) model than the vnode/tnode model.
This would mean in order to restore uA's for relations, the members of
v.children
(currently v.t.children, if I read the code correcty) could be
extended to a list
of a vnode and a uA. This extension could be applied to either
v.t.children or
v.t.vnodeList, but not necessarily both ... v.t.vnodeList makes a bit
more sense
imho. As vnodeList seems to permeate the core code quite thoroughly,
however,
it really seems better to cancel my project and call it a day.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
