On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 1:02 PM, Ville M. Vainio <[email protected]> wrote: > Why not just have c.deletePositionsInList? With possible root argument > (if you think it'll speed it up or whatever)?
That's possible, but imo the method more naturally belongs in the position class. > Also, why is there afterLastNode? Why not just stop when all the > positions have been deleted? Because all positions need not be deleted explicitly. Indeed, a p1 and p2 may be in aList such that p2 is a descendant of p1. In that case, p1 will be explicitly deleted (moved), but p2 will "go along for the ride". This is an extremely important benefit to the client code: it doesn't have to worry about redundant deletes. One could image doing what you suggest, but it adds yet another theorem to be proved. Perhaps that would be easy. Perhaps not. I suspect clones might rear their ugly heads, and I would rather move on now... 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.
